Thermodynamics and The Universe

I fear you're right, which is extremely frustrating as a study of EODoc's thought processes would be infinitely more useful than just keeping a thread on-topic. I'm still shocked and appalled over this, and simply can't understand how he can take his position. I have met bio-chem graduate creationists before, but I never imagined one could get to post-doc. I'd be very very interested to learn at what stage he became a creationist.

I think the reason for this is that (off the top of my head or made up a bit) some light can get "left behind". It starts off before the speed of recession is too much and can get to us after the galaxy is "out of range".I have a proper explanation in some book here but, as usual, can't remember where. Edited by NosyNed, : spelling

The microwave background (google WMAP) is what is "left" of the light\radiation from the moment (theoretical) when energy "condensed" into matter and left gaps in the universe. It has "red-shifted" all the way down to microwaves that are detectable as background "noise".About WMAP Mission Results

quote:

---

WMAP has produced a new, more detailed picture of the infant universe. Colors indicate "warmer" (red) and "cooler" (blue) spots. The white bars show the "polarization" direction of the oldest light. This new information helps to pinpoint when the first stars formed and provides new clues about events that transpired in the first trillionth of a second of the universe.

---

Light doesn't change speed, just wavelength. There is also a difference between where the galaxy "is" now, where it "was" when the light left, and the distance light has traveled to get "here" due to the stretching factor.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Buz, you should know better... this is a science thread.Your idea of god requires the physical space and time dimensions of the universe to exist. Mine does not. Therefore, my idea of god >> your idea of god How's that? No, it is not assumming it comes from nothing. You cannot "come" from "nothing". If you are talking simply about energy, I'll use the standard reply that the energy of universe is zero. The positive energy of the mass is offset by the negative energy of the expansion. Happy now? Who's this "we"? And what do you mean by energy?

I assume that this is an approximation that applies only to macroscopic systems? If so, does this approximation break down as one approches a singularity? Is 'Energy' of any use at that point?

Is it me or are those two statements self-contradictory? In the first statment you talk about there being no such thing as 'before' the universe. In the second statement you say Now the wording of this strongly implies that there was a point in time 'before' the universe when there was nothing, and then some time later the universe existed. The two statements are fundamentally incompatible. I'm assuming you're talking about Thermodymics being unapplicable 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? Not really on topic, but why does a universe 'with no beginning or end' have to be infinite?

That's the idea, yes. The word "energy" is bandied around as if everyone is clear of its meaning. But it is very misunderstood - it has no clear unambiguous definition in most types of universe, even at macroscopic scales. At the level of the very early universe, it's not a term we even use.

The point is that a recession velocity of "c" doesn't mean very much. We use it as the defintion of the Hubble Sphere, but that's about it. There is nothing special about "c" when comparing two different frames in a curved space-time. The particle horizon is the sort of equivalent of the horizon created by a particle receding at c in SR - where we get the infinite red-shift - but it occurs in expanding universes at recession velocities greater than c.

Hi SplitChief, welcome to EvC The basics have already been dealt with but I'll just re-iterate them:Think of expansion of the universe not as movement of the superclusters, but that of the empty space in-between stretching. Apart from a little lcoal wiggling, nothing actually moves as the universe expands. The good old balloon analogy perfectly demonstrates this - dots drawn on the balloon do not move but get prgressively further apart as the balloon inflates.There is no limit to the rate of this expansion and this is not a problem becasue nothing is actually moving.The question of how big is the observable universe is a bit odd though, because I have have to ask "when?" The superclusters we observe are now much much further away than they were when the light we see left them. So do we mean - how far were they away when they looked like we see them? - or how far are they away right now when they may be totally different?.Right now, the observable universe has a radius of about 46 billion light years. That means that something that a photon emitted from us not long after the BB is now 46 billion light years away, despite only travelling for 13.5 billion years. So on top of its 1 light year for every year from its own speed of light, it got a free ride of 32.5 billion light years from the expasnion of the universe!

No, it's not But read the other replies and you should get the idea...

quote:

---

I don't see how you can exempt laws of physics from the science of a system origin hypothesis which itself defies the the laws observed within the system.

---

I'm not, that is the point. I am saying that the law of conservation of energy simply states that the total energy at time 1 is the same as at time 2. Well, even if the universe has only existed for a finite amount of time, there has never been a time when the energy was 0. Time began with the universe and the existence of energy. t=0 (ignoring the quantum and GR complications that cavediver has been trying to point out), we had the universe with the energy content that we see today. But there was no prior time, no t=-1, so there was not time when the energy content was different. Hence, no violation of the conservation of energy.-

quote:

---

I don't see how you can exempt laws of physics from the science of a system origin hypothesis which itself defies the the laws observed within the system.

---

Because, as I have tried to point out, this involves applying the laws of physics to something that is not the universe, namely the nothing (Chaos, in the original Greek) that existed or didn't exist or whatever the hell I'm trying to say "before" there was a universe. To say, in this case, that conservation of energy has been violated, I would have to compare the energy content of the universe with the energy content in something that is not even the universe. I don't even know what that means.This is why I feel that "a cause of the universe" is a nonsensical statement. Until the universe exists, there is no stage on which a cause can act.Talking about "before" the universe when there isn't even any time, or actors when there isn't even any space in which to sit just doesn't make any sense. That is why I say that the universe simply exists. I can't make any sense of anything else.-

quote:

---

The only other alternative is that the Universe is infinite without beginning or end....

---

By the way, I have no trouble with this concept either; in fact, it's my preferred model. It's just that the evidence seems to indicate otherwise.

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

what about if there was some sort of state that did'nt require time, so theres never been an absolute nothing but what ever precided the exspansion of space was there but without the dimension of time..so in one sense there was something but in another sense there was'nt because this state did'nt have a dimension of timeso then you could say if there was no time then it did'nt exist, but maybe it did exist without time needing to be a factor.... it's a bit like QM to me.... you have to think outside the boxjust a thought Edited by Fabric, : spelling

Hi Chiroptera. I appreciate that you respond to my points in a manner which the layman can reason and comprehend. Isn't your above statement pretty much what I claim regarding the creator designer, that he simply exits? In all due respect, I don't see your statement as any more mainline fundamentally scientific than mine.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

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

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hey, Buz.

quote:

---

Isn't your above statement pretty much what I claim regarding the creator designer, that he simply exits?

---

Chiroptera: The universe exists.Buzsaw: A designer exists, and this designer created the universe.Yeah, pretty much the same, but my statement has fewer moving parts. According to Occam's Razor, unless you have additional reasons to believe a designer exists (and I think you do, right?), then my statement should be preferred. Although I admit that Occam's Razor, besides being invoked inappropriately, does not guarantee truth.-

quote:

---

In all due respect, I don't see your statement as any more mainline fundamentally scientific than mine.

---

It isn't. I don't think that you can (at least at this point in our state of knowledge) say anything scientific about the "creation of the universe".

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely