Entropy Question
Kristine Marr
My question concerns the origin of the universe. Since entropy is
always increasing, there has to be a point in the past at which entropy
was zero.
If this is true, then it points to a beginning of the universe.
Before that time, there must have either been an entirely static
universe (frozen, so to speak), or no universe at all. Either way, it
spells bad news for the origin of our universe, since something can not
come from nothing, and no activity could come from something completely
static.
So the question is, taking entropy in to account, how can an
atheist account for the origin of the universe? (This sounds loaded, but
i'm not implying that a religionist could do any better. In fact he
couldn't. So don't counterargue that God doesn't solve the problem,
please.)
My conclusion is then, that either entropy is an invalid law, or
the universe doesn't exist. Assuming that entropy is valid, and the
universe does exist, doesn't this point to the possibility of there
being something beyond what we consider 'natural laws', which affect our
universe?
Or is there another way around this problem?
tdi...@dfl.doc.ca
Kristine Marr wrote:
>
> My question concerns the origin of the universe. Since entropy is
> always increasing, there has to be a point in the past at which entropy
> was zero.
> If this is true, then it points to a beginning of the universe.
> Before that time, there must have either been an entirely static
> universe (frozen, so to speak), or no universe at all. Either way, it
> spells bad news for the origin of our universe, since something can not
> come from nothing, and no activity could come from something completely
> static.
> So the question is, taking entropy in to account, how can an
> atheist account for the origin of the universe?
> the universe doesn't exist. Assuming that entropy is valid, and the
> universe does exist, doesn't this point to the possibility of there
> being something beyond what we consider 'natural laws', which affect our
> universe?
> Or is there another way around this problem?
Yes, there is.
You're incorrectly applying our known physical laws to the big bang
singularity and whatever came "before" it. All the laws that we know
would not apply at the instant of the big bang; they certainly
wouldn't apply before it. Your assumption of valid entropy does not
therefore hold at the big bang, so you can't make conclusions about
the laws of the universe.
Tim D.
Tim.Di...@space.gc.ca
Charles Fiterman
In article <332E63...@worldnet.att.net>,
Kristine Marr <kris...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> My question concerns the origin of the universe. Since entropy is
>always increasing, there has to be a point in the past at which entropy
>was zero.
> If this is true, then it points to a beginning of the universe.
>Before that time, there must have either been an entirely static
>universe (frozen, so to speak), or no universe at all. Either way, it
>spells bad news for the origin of our universe, since something can not
>come from nothing, and no activity could come from something completely
>static.
> So the question is, taking entropy in to account, how can an
>i'm not implying that a religionist could do any better. In fact he
>couldn't. So don't counterargue that God doesn't solve the problem,
>please.)
>the universe doesn't exist. Assuming that entropy is valid, and the
>universe does exist, doesn't this point to the possibility of there
>being something beyond what we consider 'natural laws', which affect our
>universe?
> Or is there another way around this problem?
Let me start with the connection to atheism. Atheism answers questions
only by delegation, since science is popular these days the delegation
is generally to science. Big bang, steady state and an admission of
ignorance are all perfectly compatible with atheism. Fifty years ago
the standard atheistic answer to the origin question was "I don't know."
And there are recorded atheists as far back as 500 B.C.
But consider the theory that the universe was created by a committee of
powerful and insane beings. This theory is common to several religions.
The only evidence for this theory is that it makes more sense than the
single intelligent being theory, but what if the evidence was massive.
What if the beings could be observed and questioned as routinely as
movie stars. As long as I didn't serve and worship those beings I would
remain an atheist. Indeed the sun is a god in several religions, I
routinely observe it and am an atheist. Reducing the number of gods
to one and even giving it a mind changes nothing.
Back to entropy, like all scientific laws entropy is deduced from
observation. Statements like your "something cannot come from nothing"
are not part of the scientific view, we do not start from principals
we start from observation. If the second law of thermodynamics never
breaks down how do the gods exist? How did the gods create the universe?
We still don't have all the answers and maybe we never will, I can
live with that. I don't need to invent gods to give me answers. And
the gods don't really answer your questions. If entropy breaks down
under special conditions why do I need a god as part of the answer?
If you really want to attack atheism the problem you must attack is
the intolerance and cruelty fostered by religion. As long as that
problem exists even bringing Zeus to a press conference wont make
me worship him.
Jason C Romero
In article <332E63...@worldnet.att.net>,
Kristine Marr <kris...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> My question concerns the origin of the universe. Since entropy is
>always increasing, there has to be a point in the past at which entropy
>was zero.
I could be wrong but I don't think there was ever a point at which
entropy was equal to zero...
> If this is true, then it points to a beginning of the universe.
>Before that time, there must have either been an entirely static
>universe (frozen, so to speak), or no universe at all. Either way, it
>spells bad news for the origin of our universe, since something can not
>come from nothing, and no activity could come from something completely
>static.
The very nature of entropy is that it increases...no activity would
imply that there was no energy in the universe...but whatever stuff
was there could be broken down to make energy...saying that something
cannot come from nothing implies that there is no creator...what is
wrong with believing that all the things that make up the universe as
we know it have always been?...
> So the question is, taking entropy in to account, how can an
>atheist account for the origin of the universe? (This sounds loaded, but
>i'm not implying that a religionist could do any better. In fact he
>couldn't. So don't counterargue that God doesn't solve the problem,
>please.)
By saying that you have flaws in your understanding of entropy...
> My conclusion is then, that either entropy is an invalid law, or
>the universe doesn't exist. Assuming that entropy is valid, and the
>universe does exist, doesn't this point to the possibility of there
>being something beyond what we consider 'natural laws', which affect our
>universe?
Well I think the first law of thermodynamics...energy can neither be
created nor destroyed...points to the absence of a creator...
> Or is there another way around this problem?
There is another way...what exactly made you think of this
anyways?...not bashing...just curious...what was the stream of
thoughts that brought you to this one...
GOD
--
YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT
I AM NOT GOD
Eric Pepke
In article <332E63...@worldnet.att.net>, Kristine Marr
<kris...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> My conclusion is then, that either entropy is an invalid law, or
> the universe doesn't exist. Assuming that entropy is valid, and the
> universe does exist, doesn't this point to the possibility of there
> being something beyond what we consider 'natural laws', which affect our
> universe?
I think there's another way around it. I haven't seen this published; as
far as I can tell I thought it up myself. I'm not sure whether it's full
of shit or not. It's based on looking at thermodynamics from an
information theory perspective.
OK. We live in a quantum universe. That means that there are a finite
number of energy states for any particle, and there are therefore a finite
number of configurations of the universe. This number, admittedly, is
pretty large. Entropy is usually given as a relative term, a comparison
of probabilities. However, it should be theoretically possible, given the
number of energy states of the universe, to calculate a minimum and
maximum entropy. The second law of thermodynamics works within this
minimum and maximum. It's a statistical law which works because the
number of energy states is really large.
So, the idea is that as you go farther back toward the Big Bang (and also
toward the Big Crunch, if any), as the universe gets smaller, then the
total number of energy states gets smaller. As the number of energy
states gets smaller, the minimum and maximum possible values of entropy
get closer together. At a true singularity, you have zero degrees of
freedom, so the minimum entropy is the same as the maximum entropy. Even
close to a true singularity, you'd get a number of energy states small
enough so that random fluctuation would have a fairly significant
probability of putting the universe into any energy state.
As an illustration, imagine a universe which has a Big Bang and a Big
Crunch, but in other ways is very different from our own. It's made of
particles of various masses, and each particle has a spin that's either up
or down. The universe starts off with a single particle, which is either
up or down. When the universe expands, two things happen. One is that
each particle may spontaneously decay into three particles, each with
one-third the mass, but all with the same spin. Another is that each
particle may spontaneously reverse it's spin. As the universe expands,
you see the second law of thermodynamics working on the spins.
As the universe contracts, another thing happens. Particles bump into
each other, and occasionally three particles come together to form one big
particle. The three particles "vote" on the spin of the resulting
particle, which gets a spin of either up or down. Everything here obeys
the second law of thermodynamics, too, but in spite of that, ultimately
you wind up with a single particle which is either up or down. This is
just what you started off with, and so the cycle can go again.
Eric Pepke | Everyone's dream
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute | Is to unstep
Florida State University | The butterfly.
pe...@scri.fsu.edu | -EP
geo...@remove.spamguard.mit.edu
>always increasing, there has to be a point in the past at which entropy
>was zero.
Incorrect. Basic mathematics:
d
-- e^t = e^t > 0
dt
for all t, including t < 0.
So the fact that entropy is a monotonically increasing function does
not imply that it _has_ to have been zero at some time.
In fact, the physical definition of the entropy is the log of the
number of accessible states of the system. Obviously this number is
integer (quantum mechanically) and so its log can never be less than
zero. One might speculate that if the initial state of the universe
were a singularity, that in that state it had exactly one available
state, (entropy = 0) and has been increasing ever since.
>Either way, it
>spells bad news for the origin of our universe, since something can not
>come from nothing, and no activity could come from something completely
>static.
These statements sound suspiciously like ones frequently used by
religionists. In fact, current physical theory tells us that in fact
something CAN come from nothing -- some speculate that our entire
universe is merely the result of a quantum fluctuation. This would
neatly avoid any dilemmas such as those you pose.
George Heintzelman
geo...@Mit.edu
Jason C Romero
I have only meek understandings of entropy and the second law of
thermodynamics but there still seems to be quite a few flaws in your reasoning...
> My question concerns the origin of the universe. Since entropy is
>always increasing, there has to be a point in the past at which entropy
>was zero.
>From my understanding entropy is always in a state of flux...there are
things in our universe that seek to have their own order so to
speak...such as oxygen bonding with another oxygen atom so that it
will be more stable...beyond all this...simply because entropy is
increasing does not mean that it was zero at one point...
> If this is true, then it points to a beginning of the universe.
>Before that time, there must have either been an entirely static
>universe (frozen, so to speak), or no universe at all. Either way, it
>spells bad news for the origin of our universe, since something can not
>come from nothing, and no activity could come from something completely
>static.
This implies that this creator supernaturally worked against the very
laws of the system s/he created since you yourself said "no activity
could come from something completely static"...again...i posit that
this "completely static" system never existed and is unfounded
speculation...but i could be very very wrong...
> So the question is, taking entropy in to account, how can an
>atheist account for the origin of the universe? (This sounds loaded, but
>i'm not implying that a religionist could do any better. In fact he
>couldn't. So don't counterargue that God doesn't solve the problem,
>please.)
By saying that there are flaws in your understanding of entropy
:)...but if you want to use thermodynamic laws then why not take the
first...energy cannot be created nor destroyed...would that not imply
that the universe did NOT have a creator?...
> My conclusion is then, that either entropy is an invalid law, or
>the universe doesn't exist. Assuming that entropy is valid, and the
>universe does exist, doesn't this point to the possibility of there
>being something beyond what we consider 'natural laws', which affect our
>universe?
I don't think there could be a completely static universe...but even
if there were there would be lots of energy involved in keeping it in
that state...it takes a lot of energy to make a system
ordered...eventually the energy used to keep that system ordered would
break that same system down...
> Or is there another way around this problem?
There is another way around...what made you think that entropy would
have been zero at one point in time?...im just curious not bashing
you...the idea that chaos tends to increase goes against the idea of
an "ordered" supernatural being as it is...it is kind of interesting
to me when persons try to point to the existence of some type of
supernatural being using science...
Kristine Marr
Eric Pepke wrote:
As an illustration, imagine a universe which has a Big Bang and a
Big
Crunch, but in other ways is very different from our own. It's made
of
particles of various masses, and each particle has a spin that's
either up
or down. The universe starts off with a single particle, which is
either
up or down. When the universe expands, two things happen. One is
that
each particle may spontaneously decay into three particles, each
with
one-third the mass, but all with the same spin. Another is that
each
particle may spontaneously reverse it's spin. As the universe
expands,
you see the second law of thermodynamics working on the spins.
If there is only a single available state, there is no spontaneous
decay, so none of this can happen.
As the universe contracts, another thing happens. Particles bump
into
each other, and occasionally three particles come together to form
one big
particle. The three particles "vote" on the spin of the resulting
particle, which gets a spin of either up or down. Everything here
obeys
the second law of thermodynamics, too, but in spite of that,
ultimately
you wind up with a single particle which is either up or down. This
is
just what you started off with, and so the cycle can go again.
This just negates the second law of entropy. Entropy applies to fusion
reactions as well.
It is an interesting theory, but It assumes an entropy reversal, which
must be justified, somehow.
Kristine Marr
geo...@REMOVE.SPAMGUARD.mit.edu wrote: Incorrect. Basic mathematics:
d
-- e^t = e^t > 0
dt
for all t, including t < 0.
So the fact that entropy is a monotonically increasing function does
not imply that it _has_ to have been zero at some time.
In fact, the physical definition of the entropy is the log of the
number of accessible states of the system. Obviously this number is
integer (quantum mechanically) and so its log can never be less than
zero. One might speculate that if the initial state of the universe
were a singularity, that in that state it had exactly one available
state, (entropy = 0) and has been increasing ever since.
You are basically saying the same thing I'm saying, except that you
ignore the obvious conclusion. (Assuming that current entropy is finite,
the always increasing integer function would have to have a zero point.
Unless time stops somewhere in the past.)
A singularity would have only one available state. That says it all. It
couldn't all of a sudden develop a new state, so therefore, no universe.
New states only develop after energetic reactions. That takes reactants.
No entropy, no reactants.
>Either way, it
>spells bad news for the origin of our universe, since something can
not
>come from nothing, and no activity could come from something
completely
>static.
These statements sound suspiciously like ones frequently used by
religionists. In fact, current physical theory tells us that in fact
something CAN come from nothing -- some speculate that our entire
universe is merely the result of a quantum fluctuation. This would
neatly avoid any dilemmas such as those you pose.
Quantum fluctuations, require something to fluctuate. No physicist
would suggest that the universe came entirely out've nothing at all.
Things only appear to come of nothing, when other things are around to
produce the affects. I think I'd believe in God before I'd believe in
magically appearing universes.
Kristine Marr
Charles Fiterman wrote:
If you really want to attack atheism the problem you must attack is
the intolerance and cruelty fostered by religion. As long as that
problem exists even bringing Zeus to a press conference wont make
me worship him.
I had no intentions of attacking atheism. Merely asking the type of
question that I feel an atheist must be able to grapple with. Your 'I
don't know' is perfectly honest and I accept that. I don't know either.
I'm not suggesting that you should worship zeus or anybody else.
My point is, while atheists are very quick to apply reason and science
to most objections to atheism, why are they all of a sudden so happy to
suggest that, oh yeah, well, at the big bang, everything was different,
so anything we know doesn't matter (As far as I know, a true singularity
is not a possible phenomenon)? Or all of a sudden deny the intuitive
fact that something can't come from nothing (quantum mechanics
notwithstanding - there's always a balancing reaction there, so
something doesn't actually come from nothing).
It's sounds suspiciously like religionists, who, when presented with a
difficult problem, say, well we can't really understand God, so let's
just have faith that he knows what he's doing.
Eric Pepke
In article <3330EE...@worldnet.att.net>, Kristine Marr
<kris...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> This just negates the second law of entropy. Entropy applies to fusion
> reactions as well.
> It is an interesting theory, but It assumes an entropy reversal, which
> must be justified, somehow.
Nope. The three-into-one, with the "voting" is an entropy-increasing
operation, because it destroys information (the spin of the disagreeing
particles). One-into-three certainly doesn't reduce the entropy, though
it might be reversable, as are many interactions in our universe.
There is no reversal of entropy. Nevertheless, the end state is similar
to the beginning state.
Jon Graehl
Kristine Marr wrote:
>
> My question concerns the origin of the universe. Since entropy is
> always increasing, there has to be a point in the past at which entropy
> was zero.
That's not true. lots of functions are always increasing but always
positive. Anyhow, what's entropy being zero got to do with it. 2nd law
says total entropy increases or stays the same. The beginning of the
universe (supposing that before there was only 1 possible state, or
entropy = 0) is consitent with the 2nd law (even though it wouldn't
bother me if it weren't, it's kind of a boundary condition, yes?)
> So the question is, taking entropy in to account, how can an
> atheist account for the origin of the universe?
entropy / 2nd law is something we have found to always be true for all
observations we have been able to make
trying to reason about what was before the existence of this universe,
using this law which is justified only in observations in this universe,
is pointless.
Since we cannot observe before the beginning of the universe (at least,
not with our telescopes right now ;)), it's safe to say that nobody can
account for the origin of the universe except with guesses and analogies
to physical processes.
at least an atheist doesn't have to explain the origin of god ;)
Chris Roth
It may be that you've inadvertently proceeded from a false
premise when you wrote about something going on before the
Big Bang.
I suppose it's possible that the idea of something happening
BEFORE the Big Bang has no basis in reality.
The only analogy I can offer is that the idea that there's
something OUTSIDE of the universe has no basis in reality.
I'm sure that many readers are familiar with the notion that
the universe is "finite yet unbounded."
Hope this helps. Oh, you may want to read Ted Howard's
_Entropy: The New World View_. Very clearly written.
Chris Roth
Paul Filseth
geo...@REMOVE.SPAMGUARD.mit.edu wrote:
> In fact, the physical definition of the entropy is the log of the
> number of accessible states of the system. Obviously this number is
> integer (quantum mechanically) and so its log can never be less than
> zero.
pe...@scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) wrote:
> OK. We live in a quantum universe. That means that there are a finite
> number of energy states for any particle, and there are therefore a finite
> number of configurations of the universe.
Actually, quantum mechanics doesn't imply that the universe has a finite,
or even countably infinite, number of states. Just because some things are
quantized doesn't mean that everything is. An example is the energy level
of an electron with respect to a proton. If this value is negative, meaning
the two are bound together in a hydrogen atom, then the energy levels are
discrete, but there are infinitely many, most far too close to each other to
be distinguished. If the value is positive, meaning the atom is ionized,
then the value is continuously varying.
The equations of quantum mechanics are old fashioned differential
equations, just like in Newtonian mechanics, and change continuously. The
reason you get quantization is boundary conditions. In the case of the
hydrogen atom, energy levels are discrete because the electron's wave
function has to close on itself after going around the proton once, so it
has to be an exact integer number of wavelengths long. Once the electron
escapes, the wave function doesn't have to close on itself any more.
It's possible, of course, that if the universe is itself finite, this
provides a boundary condition that could quantize the positions and energy
levels of all the particles. But any such constraint would depend on gravity,
and there is no quantum theory of gravity yet, so I think such speculation
is premature. Besides...
In another thread, "Jon" <ruff...@msn.com> wrote:
> Well, according to all scientific data we have, space isn't endless and has
> boundaries.
Which data? The last I heard, estimates of the mass in the universe
were coming in around ten times too low for a closed universe model. The
numbers Steven Weinberg reports imply that the universe is infinite and will
expand forever. No big crunch. Have the estimates recently changed?
--
Paul Filseth That's a hard question. I don't answer hard questions.
p...@lsil.com - Justice John Paul Stevens
Daeron
Kristine Marr wrote:
> My point is, while atheists are very quick to apply reason and science
> to most objections to atheism, why are they all of a sudden so happy to
> suggest that, oh yeah, well, at the big bang, everything was different,
It *was* indeed different - because the Big Bang represents a
*singularity* - infinite density and esentially zero volume - so that
the laws of physics (as we know them-understand them) cannot apply. Not
to recognize that difference is to be both facile and egregious in one's
application of physical principles - all of which have limits and
domains of validity.
> so anything we know doesn't matter (As far as I know, a true singularity
> is not a possible phenomenon)?
No- not that 'anything we know doesn't matter' - rather that what we
know - in terms of the principles, formalism - is not adequate to
encompass the singularity coincident with the Big Bang - in terms of
retroactively predicting its physical conditions. Now - we can certainly
extrapolate back to about 10^-44s or so after the BB- which is pretty
damned close.
And - in case you hadn't heard, S. Hawking has conceded that he lost his
longstanding bet with Kip Thorne (of Caltech) that naked singularities
exist. (And the Big Bang would have been a naked singularity). Of
course, normal singularities are found as a rule in stellar scale black
holes, such as Cygnus X-1.
>Or all of a sudden deny the intuitive
> fact that something can't come from nothing (quantum mechanics
> notwithstanding - there's always a balancing reaction there, so
> something doesn't actually come from nothing).
Well, in a paper I read not long ago ('Universe Before Planck Time') the
author T. Padmanabhan, does indeed show how a quantum mechanical
fluctuation can precipitate 'seomthing' (the cosmos) from 'nothing' -
the Dirac Ether - or Planck-scale Vacuum.
> It's sounds suspiciously like religionists, who, when presented with a
> difficult problem, say, well we can't really understand God, so let's
> just have faith that he knows what he's doing.
But faith is all the religionists ever had anyway! They never - at any
point in time - had a coherent formalism or analytical system designed
to render predictions from observations and datasets. Hence - there is
no analogy between them whatsoever.
Science does possess such formidable predictive systems - but is also
pragmatic enough to recognize the limits of the validity. One need not
necessarily go to the physical extremes of the Big Bang to find
examples. For instance, Newtonian mechanics is perfectly valid as a
system to obtain, say - the orbital elements of an artifical earth
satellite, in near earth orbit. However, it's validity would be strained
by extension far beyond that domain - say to examine the annual shift in
Mercury's perihelion.
My point is religion - take your pick here - has no coherent systems at
all- *for any domains* - no matter how small. Hence, ab initio they have
nothing but 'faith'.
Eric Stevenson
Kristine Marr (kris...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: My question concerns the origin of the universe. Since entropy is
: always increasing, there has to be a point in the past at which entropy
: was zero.
Or the universe may have originated with a certain level of entropy.
: If this is true, then it points to a beginning of the universe.
: Before that time, there must have either been an entirely static
: universe (frozen, so to speak), or no universe at all. Either way, it
: spells bad news for the origin of our universe, since something can not
: come from nothing, and no activity could come from something completely
: static.
Another possibility is that the laws of physics were different near the
beginning of the universe. Perhaps at a very early time, it was possible
for zero or negative entropy processes to function. This would allow for
an infinite recylcing of the universe.
As for the "something cannot come from nothing" argument, that is based
on current experience. Had we been able to observe the origin of the
universe, the conservation laws would include an exception for the
circumstances found at that time.
Of course, the common sense, "you can't get something for nothing,"
argument applies to all origin theories. The idea that the universe could
have an origin goes against our experience, so we find it difficult to
understand. Therefore, either something happened that is not in our
experience, or the universe has no origin.
: My conclusion is then, that either entropy is an invalid law, or
: the universe doesn't exist. Assuming that entropy is valid, and the
: universe does exist, doesn't this point to the possibility of there
: being something beyond what we consider 'natural laws', which affect our
: universe?
Yes. The obvious answer is that there are more natural laws than we
currently understand, and that some of these laws are what allowed the
universe to exist. It seems unlikely that we understand the universe
completely.
Todd
In article <9703210846.AA07161@dsa43>, p...@lsil.com (Paul Filseth) thus spake:
> The equations of quantum mechanics are old fashioned differential
>equations, just like in Newtonian mechanics, and change continuously. The
>reason you get quantization is boundary conditions. In the case of the
>hydrogen atom, energy levels are discrete because the electron's wave
>function has to close on itself after going around the proton once, so it
>has to be an exact integer number of wavelengths long. Once the electron
>escapes, the wave function doesn't have to close on itself any more.
>
<end quote>
This whole discussion has become strangely Derridean in nature.
Meatball Mulligan
Steven Carr
on Thu, 20 Mar 1997 01:53:23 -0600, Kristine Marr
<kris...@worldnet.att.net> wrote :
> I had no intentions of attacking atheism. Merely asking the type of
>question that I feel an atheist must be able to grapple with. Your 'I
>don't know' is perfectly honest and I accept that. I don't know either.
What's more, it appears to be impossible for anybody to ever know. All
information about the state of the Universe before the Planck time is
lost. Even time and space lose their meaning before 10 to the minus 43
seconds.
Without data, there can be no science. After the Planck time, we can
then use high-energy physics to model the Big Bang. This predicts such
things as the ratio of helium to hydrogen very accurately.
>I'm not suggesting that you should worship zeus or anybody else.
>My point is, while atheists are very quick to apply reason and science
>to most objections to atheism, why are they all of a sudden so happy to
>suggest that, oh yeah, well, at the big bang, everything was different,
>so anything we know doesn't matter (As far as I know, a true singularity
>is not a possible phenomenon)? Or all of a sudden deny the intuitive
>fact that something can't come from nothing (quantum mechanics
>notwithstanding - there's always a balancing reaction there, so
>something doesn't actually come from nothing).
Are there such things as 'intuitive facts'? Even if there are, I for
one do not trust my intuition when it talks about the Universe,
especially at times when the entire Universe is 10 to the power 30
degrees Centigrade and is smaller than an atomic nucleus.
Relying on intuition in those conditions is silly.
You might say 'quantum mechanics notwithstanding', but you can't
actually withstand quantum mechanics. It works very well.
The Big Bang theory says nothing about where the Universe came from.
>It's sounds suspiciously like religionists, who, when presented with a
>difficult problem, say, well we can't really understand God, so let's
>just have faith that he knows what he's doing.
At least we can make predictions using Big Bang theory. Can anybody
predict the mind of God? The mind of God just can't be part of a
scientific theory. Science can't deal very well with minds. The only
reason Behaviourism was developed was because it was felt that humans
couldn't understand the minds of chickens or rats. If science
struggled with chicken minds, God is out of the picture.
Steven Carr ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
Visit the UK's leading atheist Web page
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/
Eric Stevenson
Kristine Marr (kris...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Eric Pepke wrote:
: up or down. When the universe expands, two things happen. One is
: that
: each particle may spontaneously decay into three particles, each
: If there is only a single available state, there is no spontaneous
: decay, so none of this can happen.
The particle has a single available state under the intial conditions. As
the conditions change (the universe expands) the available states change.
<combination of particles at the Crunch>
: This just negates the second law of entropy. Entropy applies to fusion
: reactions as well.
: It is an interesting theory, but It assumes an entropy reversal, which
: must be justified, somehow.
Unfortunately, the model is very simple. It is simply a scenario to
illustrate possible events at the beginning and end of the universe.
Since conditions at those times are dramatically different than now, our
current laws are not adequate to explain them.
For example, Newton's laws of motion were thought to be accurate, but
Einstein showed that they were invalid at high velocities. Newton's laws
are a special case of Einstein's laws. We may discover that the laws of
thermodynamics are a special case of some more complex laws.
Unfortunately, the conditions under which we live make it difficult to
gain a full understanding of the nature of thermodynamics.
G Markee
>
> You're incorrectly applying our known physical laws to the big bang
> singularity and whatever came "before" it. All the laws that we know
> would not apply at the instant of the big bang; they certainly
> wouldn't apply before it. Your assumption of valid entropy does not
> therefore hold at the big bang, so you can't make conclusions about
> the laws of the universe.
>
> Tim D.
> Tim.Di...@space.gc.ca
>
The other consideration to this argument is that the nature of the
universe is cyclic, going through periods of expansion and contraction.
The time factor and size of the universe are irrelevant in this model.
Entropy as a theory has valid considerations, but one of the things
pointed out by theists is true ... it might be wrong. Just because a
theory is in error does not mean the religionist argument is any more
valid than it was before. Atheists never claim to be omniscient, but
the fundamental difference between them and those who value reason over
faith, is that an atheist can admit that a scientific theory may be
in error.
But the Theory being in error does not lend any support to a theist
argument. A scientific theory is the use of REASON applied to available
scientific data. If all the data is not in or if an error is made in the
interpretation of data, theories may develop that are incorrect. The use
of REASON usually is able to ferret out these false theories
Eric Stevenson
Kristine Marr (kris...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: My point is, while atheists are very quick to apply reason and science
: to most objections to atheism, why are they all of a sudden so happy to
: suggest that, oh yeah, well, at the big bang, everything was different,
: so anything we know doesn't matter (As far as I know, a true singularity
: is not a possible phenomenon)?
Well, at the big bang, everything *was* different. From what I've seen,
even the physicists don't understand a lot of what occured even after tha
bang. I've seen some speculation that the reason we get a singularity is
that our current model of physics is inadequate to describe what happened
at that time. Not really surprising, because science is based on what
we've observed, and we've never seen anything like the beginning of the
universe. But, going with that thought, the singularity is the result of
our lack of knowledge, not something that actually existed. I'm no
cosmologist, I could easily be wrong.
: Or all of a sudden deny the intuitive
: fact that something can't come from nothing (quantum mechanics
: notwithstanding - there's always a balancing reaction there, so
: something doesn't actually come from nothing).
Intuition can be useful, but since it is based on previous experience, it
is fallible. The something from nothing argument is a hole in every
origin of the universe idea I've ever seen. No one seems to have a good
explanation for it.
: It's sounds suspiciously like religionists, who, when presented with a
: difficult problem, say, well we can't really understand God, so let's
: just have faith that he knows what he's doing.
The difference is that scientists will keep trying to find an answer to the
problem. The current theories are more speculation than hypothesis, since
testing them is difficult at best. This may change.
Janet Penelope Gunn
In <5h1fe7$b4h$2...@news.cc.umr.edu> es...@rocket.cc.umr.edu (Eric
Stevenson) writes:
>
>Kristine Marr (kris...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>: My point is, while atheists are very quick to apply reason and
science
>: to most objections to atheism, why are they all of a sudden so happy
to
>: suggest that, oh yeah, well, at the big bang, everything was
different,
>: so anything we know doesn't matter (As far as I know, a true
singularity
>: is not a possible phenomenon)?
>
that there are many things in nature I (we) do not understand, and may
never understand.
What I don't and WON'T do is say: "Because I can't understand it, it
must be the work of (a) G(g)od."
Janet Gunn
G Moore
On Fri, 21 Mar 1997 15:34:15 -0500, Daeron <sta...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>Kristine Marr wrote:
>>Or all of a sudden deny the intuitive
>> fact that something can't come from nothing (quantum mechanics
>> notwithstanding - there's always a balancing reaction there, so
>> something doesn't actually come from nothing).
and what does s,p,d and f stand for in quantum mechanics?
Kristine Marr
Eric Stevenson wrote:
Kristine Marr (kris...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Eric Pepke wrote:
: up or down. When the universe expands, two things happen. One
is
: that
: each particle may spontaneously decay into three particles, each
: If there is only a single available state, there is no spontaneous
: decay, so none of this can happen.
The particle has a single available state under the intial
conditions. As
the conditions change (the universe expands) the available states
change.
You have to realize that we're talking about the entire universe.
Conditions couldn't change, there is only one possible state. The
universe doesn't get to expand. The only way the initial state could
change is if there were some external influence acting on it. For the
purposes of this hypothetical, there are NO external influences.
We may discover that the laws of
thermodynamics are a special case of some more complex laws.
We may discover that Jack in the box is king of Andromeda.
Unfortunately, the conditions under which we live make it difficult
to
gain a full understanding of the nature of thermodynamics.
We don't understand the nature of anything. Scientific Laws are not a
matter of understanding so much, as simple facts. They just are. If you
are willing to assume that all scientific laws are incorrect, then you
can't talk about science at all.
Kristine Marr
This post is to clear up some of the misconceptions i've been
hearing, In response to my original post about the fact that the second
law of thermodynamics indicates an origin for the universe.
1. Concerning the concept of the singularity.
A singularity, besides being intuitively impossible, Is indefinable
and therefore meaningless. It is qualitatively identical to the number
1/0. 1/0 is indefinable and has no meaning in mathematics. Anybody,
Hawking or otherwise, who postulates a singularity as part of a theory,
is not doing science, and is wasting brain cells.
2. Concerning intuition. All of science and mathematics is based on
certain intuitive assumptions. You may argue that these assumptions may
be wrong, which is true, but this is entirely unhelpful, since if you
throw out these assumptions, you have to throw out science, mathematics,
and logic, and any basis for atheism or any other philosophical position
based on reason.
3. Concerning scientific laws not applying at the early times of the big
bang. When physicists say that laws don't apply at early times, they are
referring to most laws, which are special cases, and do not apply under
these extreme conditions. They are not, however saying all laws don't
apply, just that conditions are so different from those that we
currently are able to study, that our current scientific knowledge is
mostly not helpful for understanding these conditions.
(Of course AT the singularity, all laws would break down. Just as all of
mathematics breaks down if you define 1/0.)
Now, concerning entropy and these early times, as far as I know, no one
has come up with any reason why the second law would not apply here.
It's not a special case, and applies to all physical processes that we
know of. Anybody can postulate that it doesn't apply, but if you're
going to do it, you'd should have some evidence to support the
statement.
In short, there's been alot of handwaving going on, in an obvious
attempt to use whatever means necessary to support people's viewpoints.
(Not everyone has done this).
Kristine Marr
Charles Fiterman wrote:
Let me start with the connection to atheism. Atheism answers
questions
only by delegation, since science is popular these days the
delegation
is generally to science. Big bang, steady state and an admission of
ignorance are all perfectly compatible with atheism. Fifty years ago
the standard atheistic answer to the origin question was "I don't
know."
And there are recorded atheists as far back as 500 B.C.
True, but I'm merely pointing out that science has come up with a
scientific law, which does have implication for origins, and the
implications are negative. i.e. problematic.
But consider the theory that the universe was created by a committee
of
powerful and insane beings. This theory is common to several
religions.
The only evidence for this theory is that it makes more sense than
the
single intelligent being theory, but what if the evidence was
massive.
What if the beings could be observed and questioned as routinely as
movie stars. As long as I didn't serve and worship those beings I
would
remain an atheist. Indeed the sun is a god in several religions, I
routinely observe it and am an atheist. Reducing the number of gods
to one and even giving it a mind changes nothing.
I have little need for these mythologies, but as a point of
clarification, an atheist is someone who doesn't have belief in a deity
or deities. It doesn't concern worship or service.
Back to entropy, like all scientific laws entropy is deduced from
observation. Statements like your "something cannot come from
nothing"
are not part of the scientific view, we do not start from principals
we start from observation.
Not true. All science and mathematics is based on certain intuitive
assumptions. This is clearly one of them. (and one that is, at least in
part, under attack by quantum mechanics)
This is an important point. Many people have replied to my posts by
saying that intuition has no place in science. This is completely wrong.
All science relies heavily on intuitive principles, that can merely be
described as things that are 'obvious' to our intellect. None of them
are provable, yet without them, science as we think of it, wouldn't
exist.
If the second law of thermodynamics never
breaks down how do the gods exist? How did the gods create the
universe?
I never said anything about Gods. However, a God would presumably the
type of being that could freely circumvent the natural laws of creation.
I'm not postulating any such being, it's just one of an infinite number
of possibilities.
If you really want to attack atheism the problem you must attack is
the intolerance and cruelty fostered by religion. As long as that
problem exists even bringing Zeus to a press conference wont make
me worship him.
Again, no help here. I'm looking for a solution to the problem, not a
critique of religion.
By the way, intolerance is a characteristic of humans in general. I've
known intolerant atheists, and intolerant christians, jews etc. The
difference between the different groups is in world view, not tolerance,
necessarily.
Kristine Marr
Janet Penelope Gunn wrote:
>
I would take a totally different tack. As an atheist/agnostic I
accept
that there are many things in nature I (we) do not understand, and
may
never understand.
What I don't and WON'T do is say: "Because I can't understand it, it
must be the work of (a) G(g)od."
Janet Gunn
That's a perfectly fine statement to make as an atheist. But as a
critical thinker, you must consider any evidence which is contrary to
your world view. Since the second law of thermodynamics predicts a
beginning to the universe, and such a beginning is seemingly
paradoxical, you must deal with it in some fashion. If you just ignore
information critical to your world view, you are behaving just like many
religionists.
Your response, while being more succinct, is basically the same as many
of the other atheists who have responded to my original post.
Basically, the reasoning goes like this. "Yes there is a real problem
with my world view if the second law of thermodynamics is correct.
However, this doesn't put in jeopardy my opinion that belief in Gods is
unreasonable. Therefore, i'm safe in my belief's.
Give me a break please. I never mention belief in God, never offered it
as a solution. I never meant to attack atheism. I was asking a question
which I think any critical thinking atheist would have to deal with.
Since most atheists say the universe always existed, I was presenting a
problem with that concept, based on current scientific knowledge.
I was hoping to hear a theory which would deal with the problem. Mostly
all I've got is philosophy of atheism.
Jon Graehl
Kristine Marr wrote:
> Since the second law of thermodynamics predicts a
> beginning to the universe, and such a beginning is seemingly
> paradoxical, you must deal with it in some fashion. If you just ignore
> information critical to your world view, you are behaving just like many
> religionists.
The accepted theory is that there was in the past a singularity before
which we cannot obtain any information about the universe. This does
not imply that the universe had a beginning, or was created by a God.
The 2nd law does not predict a beginning of the universe. The reasoning
offered to prove such a claim is wrong (since entropy is always
increasing or staying the same, it must have been zero at some time)
I am ignoring this "information" because it is incorrect, not because it
is "critical to my world view"
Chloe Carter
>Kristine Marr wrote:
>> Since the second law of thermodynamics predicts a
>> beginning to the universe,
>
>The accepted theory is that there was in the past a singularity before
>which we cannot obtain any information about the universe. This does
>not imply that the universe had a beginning, or was created by a God.
>
>The 2nd law does not predict a beginning of the universe. The reasoning
>offered to prove such a claim is wrong (since entropy is always
>increasing or staying the same, it must have been zero at some time)
A 'beginning' to the universe is implied by the GTR. It is also
implied by the fact that the universe is observed to be expanding.
- Chloe
Daeron
Kristine Marr wrote:
>This post is to clear up some of the misconceptions i've been
>hearing, In response to my original post about the fact that the second
>law of thermodynamics indicates an origin for the universe.
>1. Concerning the concept of the singularity.
> A singularity, besides being intuitively impossible, Is indefinable
>and therefore meaningless.
Roger Penrose, using concepts, methods of topology, proved that
singularities *must* exist in the cores of collapsed stars (black holes)
back in the 1960s. Hence, it cannot be 'intuitively impossible'
as you claim. As Kip Thorne notes (p. 463, ' Black Holes And Time
Warps', W.W. Norton & Co., 1994):
"The most amazing thing about this *singularity theorem* was its
sweeping power. It dealt not only with idealized imploding stars (such
as being precisely spherical - or having no pressure); and it dealt not
solely with stars whose initial random deformations are tiny. Instead it
dealt with every imploding star imaginable, and thus, undoubtedly, with
the real imploding stars inhabiting our universe.
Penrose's singularity theorem acquired its amazing power from a new
mathematical tool that he used in its proof....topology."
> It is qualitatively identical to the number
>1/0. 1/0 is indefinable and has no meaning in mathematics.
Quantitatively - yes, you are correct, it has no meaning in mathematics.
But we are not talking about pure mathematics here, but rather the
meaning in *physics*. Penrose's singularity theorem (see above) shows
there is meaning here indeed.
> Anybody,
>Hawking or otherwise, who postulates a singularity as part of a theory,
>is not doing science, and is wasting brain cells.
Hawking did not postulate it - he conceded he was the loser (in a bet
with Kip Thorne) that *naked singularities* (i.e. outside of black hole
event horizons) existed. (Hawking claimed they did not).
Penrose certainly has not 'wasted brain cells' - as his singularity
theorem provided the basis for the much richer investigations leading to
the B-K-L (Belinsky-Khalatnikov-Lifshitz) singularity, in which chaotic
oscillations are the norm (see Thorne, op. cit., pp. 474-75).
Further, since whole vast areas of modern physics (e.g. black hole
mechanics, stellar evolution, Schwarzschild, Reissner-Nordstrom
solutions etc) are well established, this is certainly a valid area of
science.(See, e.g. the book - I believe 1260+ pages in all, 'Black
Holes' by Thorne and Misner).
>2. Concerning intuition. All of science and mathematics is based on
>certain intuitive assumptions.
No - not all. In some areas there is no scope for intuition, or
visualization. One area is quantum mechanics. It reminds me of a
question once asked by a QM student concerning the quantum
wave function: "What is it waving in?" Well - nothing physical, rather
a probability space. But as Feynmann once noted, just don't try to
visualize it - or rely on your 'intuition' there. Hear is what he said
in his 'Lectures on Physics' (p. 1-1):
"Because atomic behavior is so unlike ordinary experience,it is very
difficult to get used to. Even the experts do not understand it the way
they would like to, and it is perfectly reasonable that they should not,
because all of direct, human experience and of human intuition applies
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
to large objects. We know how large objects will act, but things on a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
small scale just do not act that way."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>You may argue that these assumptions may
>be wrong, which is true, but this is entirely unhelpful, since if you
>throw out these assumptions, you have to throw out science, mathematics,
>and logic, and any basis for atheism or any other philosophical position
>based on reason.
Not necessarily 'wrong' - but perhaps naive. Hence, the more traditional
philosophy of science known as 'naive realism' which (because of
inroads made by QM for example) has had to give way to 'far realism'.
The Aspect photon-pair correlation experiments, for instance, cannot be
accounted for in any 'naive' (or near) realism framework.
My point here is one does not necessarily 'throw out' assumptions,
merely because intuition is no longer useful. In the case of QM, what it
means is that we let the formalism (mathematical infrastructure), as
well as the experimental results, guide our intuition. We recognize that
intuition alone will lead us astray.
Hence, reason itself is not undermined but extended in power and scope.
For example, classical (Boolean) logic can no longer provide a basis for
understanding QM results. Hence, the rich field of 'quantum logic' .
>3. Concerning scientific laws not applying at the early times of the big
>bang. When physicists say that laws don't apply at early times, they are
>referring to most laws, which are special cases, and do not apply under
>these extreme conditions.
The Big Bang is the original singularity. As Thorne notes (p. 477, op.
cit.):
"There is no such thing as time inside the singularity. Because there is
no time, it is totally meaningless to ask whether space assumes a form
(b) ' before' or 'after' it assumes a form (c)"
In a similar vein, 'early times of the big bang' is meaningless. (Since
time does not exist in the Big Bang, as a singularity). What physicists
are saying is that the laws of physics as we know them, cannot apply
within a singularity. This is so because there is simply no framework to
embody the laws or make sense of them.
> They are not, however saying all laws don't
>apply, just that conditions are so different from those that we
>currently are able to study, that our current scientific knowledge is
>mostly not helpful for understanding these conditions.
>(Of course AT the singularity, all laws would break down. Just as all of
>mathematics breaks down if you define 1/0.)
You last statement is the key - and that is the only one that applies to
the Big Bang proper.
>Now, concerning entropy and these early times, as far as I know, no one
>has come up with any reason why the second law would not apply here.
Again - if we are discussing the Big Bang proper, all reference to times
('early' or 'later' or whatever is excised, since no time exists in a
singularity- which the Big Bang is).
Since no time exists there, and since the def. of entropy is contingent
upon a given direction of time - it (2nd law) cannot apply to the Big
Bang.
>It's not a special case, and applies to all physical processes that we
>know of.
Indeed - all that are *timebound*. For which a direction of time order
can be specified.
> Anybody can postulate that it doesn't apply, but if you're
>going to do it, you'd should have some evidence to support the
>statement.
The 'evidence' is the Penrose singularity theorem - and that will have
to do - at least until we can get close enough to a singularity
(presumably 'naked') to test it.
>In short, there's been alot of handwaving going on, in an obvious
>attempt to use whatever means necessary to support people's viewpoints.
>(Not everyone has done this).
I don't think so. I think we are trying to communicate, as best we can,
the parameters of the problem. In this post I ma making reference to the
singularity embodied in black hole research (Penrose's theorem) which I
believe can provide the most insight - particulary since the Big Bang
was itself a singularity. The 'grandaddy' of them all.
Kristine Marr
Daeron wrote: Roger Penrose, using concepts, methods of topology, proved
that
singularities *must* exist in the cores of collapsed stars (black
holes)
back in the 1960s. Hence, it cannot be 'intuitively impossible'
as you claim. As Kip Thorne notes (p. 463, ' Black Holes And Time
Warps', W.W. Norton & Co., 1994):
Well it's imposible to my intuition, but you are of course correct in
suggesting that my intuition may not count for much here.
> It is qualitatively identical to the number
>1/0. 1/0 is indefinable and has no meaning in mathematics.
Quantitatively - yes, you are correct, it has no meaning in
mathematics.
But we are not talking about pure mathematics here, but rather the
meaning in *physics*. Penrose's singularity theorem (see above)
shows
there is meaning here indeed.
Okay. We'll just have to agree that it's a legitimate conclusion with
incomprehensible implications.
>2. Concerning intuition. All of science and mathematics is based on
>certain intuitive assumptions.
No - not all. In some areas there is no scope for intuition, or
visualization. One area is quantum mechanics. It reminds me of a
question once asked by a QM student concerning the quantum
wave function: "What is it waving in?" Well - nothing physical,
rather
a probability space. But as Feynmann once noted, just don't try to
visualize it - or rely on your 'intuition' there. Hear is what he
said
in his 'Lectures on Physics' (p. 1-1):
yes and no. Actually, mathematics is required to derive quantum as
well as relativity theory. So these theories are based on the
assumptions of mathematics. All science is similarly based on certain
assumptions. If these assumptions are later contradicted by theory,
either the theory or the assumptions are incorrect. But your point is
well taken, in that we have the option to modify assumptions.
Apparently, our simple intuitive assumptions do not all strictly apply
at the quantum level. However, whether they're original assumptions, or
modified ones, they're still assumptions. And all of science and
mathematics is based originally on certain intuitive assumptions. That
is, there are intuitive assumptions that cannot be rejected or modified,
or all of science and mathematics fails, including quantum mechanics and
big bang theory.
In a similar vein, 'early times of the big bang' is meaningless.
(Since
time does not exist in the Big Bang, as a singularity). What
physicists
are saying is that the laws of physics as we know them, cannot apply
within a singularity. This is so because there is simply no
framework to
embody the laws or make sense of them.
You know what I meant. Times soon after the big bang.
I think we are trying to communicate, as best we can,
the parameters of the problem. In this post I ma making reference to
the
singularity embodied in black hole research (Penrose's theorem)
which I
believe can provide the most insight - particulary since the Big
Bang
was itself a singularity. The 'grandaddy' of them all.
I certainly wasn't referring to you, Daeron. You're points are very
intelligent and well taken. However, your comments do not address the
original post directly, which is what I'm looking for in a response.
Entropy is the not the key issue in the discussion, by the way. It was
merely a means to demonstrate that an origin for the universe is
predicted, something that most atheists don't believe, and which is a
paradoxical concept when examined closely. There are other methods to
demonstrate this. These are the parameters of the discussion, which
everyone thus far, has chosen to ignore.
Now, as for the singularity, could someone tell me how mass and energy
could have escpaped from the singularity? What accounts for the bang of
the big bang, and could it overcome the effects of gravity?
Remember, that a singularity is a point in space time. That is, no space
and no time, and only one possible state. How could such a thing be
responsible for a universe?
Daeron
Kristine Marr wrote:
> Now, as for the singularity, could someone tell me how mass and energy
> could have escpaped from the singularity? What accounts for the bang of
> the big bang, and could it overcome the effects of gravity?
>
> Remember, that a singularity is a point in space time. That is, no space
> and no time, and only one possible state. How could such a thing be
> responsible for a universe?
The recent (1992) results of the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite
(COBE) and the investigations of Smoot et al, have disclosed that there
are desnity fluctuations in the background suggestive of a lot of 'dark'
matter. Much of this could well be concentrated in black holes, or
intergalactic dust and gas - or other sources. The point is, it provides
an ample 'reservoir' to enable the cosmos to collapse and re-cycle again
and again. A forever oscillating universe.
Hence, 'the Big Bang' is a misnomer. In any given cosmic cycle - what is
interpreted as 'the' Big Bang is really just the Big Bang of the current
cycle. (The Big Crunch of the previous cycle). It is also conceivable -
though admittedly difficult to fathom - that this cycle could be an
infinite one without a beginning or end.
In this sense, the singularity which was the most recent Big Bang, was
not a 'static' one - starting from a zero initial state in space-time,
but a singularity derived from the implosion of a preceding collapse (of
an earlier cycle cosmos). This accounts for the 'bang' of the Big Bang,
and for all the Big Bangs in all the infinite cycles.
Paul Filseth
Daeron <sta...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Hence, the more traditional
>philosophy of science known as 'naive realism' which (because of
>inroads made by QM for example) has had to give way to 'far realism'.
>The Aspect photon-pair correlation experiments, for instance, cannot be
>accounted for in any 'naive' (or near) realism framework.
I'm not sure what you mean by "far realism", but Bohm's Pilot-Wave
interpretation is a naively realistic framework, and predicts the outcome
of such experiments correctly. If you're talking about Bell's Inequality,
what Bell proved was that naive realism has to assume faster-than-light
communication in order to model quantum mechanics.
>For example, classical (Boolean) logic can no longer provide a basis for
>understanding QM results. Hence, the rich field of 'quantum logic'.
Considering that nobody seems to understand QM, period, it isn't
clear that giving up classical logic helps. But can you describe what
is different about "quantum logic"?
Ken Arromdee
Kristine Marr <kris...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>But as a
>critical thinker, you must consider any evidence which is contrary to
>beginning to the universe, and such a beginning is seemingly
>paradoxical, you must deal with it in some fashion.
This has two problems:
1) these statements are not true.
2) these statements are not true.
Okay, it's one problem, but it's so important it really deserves repeating.
(Your argument also has the usual problem of wondering exactly what God's
beginning was.)
--
Ken Arromdee (arro...@randomc.com, karr...@nyx.nyx.net,
http://www.randomc.com/~arromdee)
"2000 members of the vegetable kingdom and I have to work with _tomatoes_!"
Paul Filseth
Kristine Marr <kris...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Charles Fiterman wrote:
>> Back to entropy, like all scientific laws entropy is deduced from
>> observation. Statements like your "something cannot come from
>> nothing" are not part of the scientific view, we do not start from
>
>Not true. All science and mathematics is based on certain intuitive
>assumptions. This is clearly one of them. (and one that is, at least in
>part, under attack by quantum mechanics)
While it is true that science is based on intuitive assumptions,
that isn't one of them. That's just a rule of thumb people used until it
started to look false, and then discarded, like "nature abhors a vacuum".
Quantum mechanics is attacking that assumption and making successful
predictions in the process. So we're replacing it with "if something
comes from nothing, it does so according to universal laws that can be
investigated." Because "everything follows universal laws" _is_ one of
the intuitive assumptions science is based on.
Mathematics isn't based on intuitive assumptions at all. That's
like saying health is based on disease. Mathematics is based only on
logic, and if there are any intuitive assumptions left in math then
killing one off will be the next major advance.
>Just as all of mathematics breaks down if you define 1/0.
It does not. I can define 1/0 = 42 and do no harm to mathematics
at all. I'll get slightly different theorems, but it would be just as
possible to do mathematical research, the results would be just as
consistent, all the deep truths like Goedel's Theorem would still apply,
and it would be just as applicable to science. Maybe a bit more of a
pain in the neck to work with, but nothing compared to differential
equations. It's just that instead of being able to prove "If a / b = c
then b * c = a", I'll be able to prove "If a / b = c and b != 0 then
b * c = a". You call that breaking down?
When we realized there was a difference between intuitive assumptions
and axioms, and that the parallel postulate was one of the former, and quit
assuming it, math didn't fall to pieces. Instead, it was enriched by the
discovery of Non-Euclidean Geometry. And Euclidean Geometry still works,
when we use the parallel postulate as an axiom. The difference between an
assumption and an axiom is that an assumption is something you believe and
an axiom is something you just use.
>1. Concerning the concept of the singularity.
> A singularity, besides being intuitively impossible, is indefinable
>and therefore meaningless.
Of course a singularity is definable. It's simply a point where a
function has no finite limit.
>Anybody, Hawking or otherwise, who postulates a singularity as part of
>a theory, is not doing science, and is wasting brain cells.
This is what is called "armchair science". People use complex numbers
in the analysis of electrical circuits. You might just as well say that the
square root of -1 is intuitively impossible, indefinable and meaningless,
so anybody who uses it isn't doing science. The theory of black holes
postulates singularities. And makes predictions that are confirmed by
astronomers. That means it's science. The universe doesn't have to follow
your prejudice against singularities any more than Aristotle's prejudice in
favor of heavy things falling faster than light things.
One of the observed facts of the world is that scientists do better
science when they don't let philosophers of science tell them how to.
>3... When physicists say that laws don't apply at early times, they are
>referring to most laws, which are special cases, and do not apply under
>these extreme conditions.
>
>Now, concerning entropy and these early times, as far as I know, no one
>has come up with any reason why the second law would not apply here.
>It's not a special case, and applies to all physical processes that we
>know of. Anybody can postulate that it doesn't apply, but if you're
>going to do it, you'd should have some evidence to support the
>statement.
The Second Law is not a fundamental law like quantum electrodynamics
or general relativity. It's a special case, dealing with the aggregate
behavior of large numbers of particles. Thermodynamics is explained in
terms of "statistical mechanics".
When it was new, in the 1800's, the law was believed to be absolute
and fundamental. Philosophers agonized over the "inevitable heat-death"
of the universe, when it would have a uniform temperature and everything
interesting would be over forever. This cultural fad has carried over to
a lot of people's attitudes today, even though it's obsolete. Heat-death
is never going to happen.
The 2nd Law is now recognized as an artifact of the way we describe
the world, and it only applies probabilistically. That is, violations of
the law are unlikely, not impossible, but the bigger the violation, the
more unlikely it is. Imagine an evacuated box with a permeable partition
and only four gas molecules in it.
--------------- ---------------
| mmmm : | | m m : m m |
--------------- ---------------
Low Entropy High Entropy
The reason entropy tends to increase is simply that if the molecules are
bouncing around at random, the high entropy state is more probable. But
it's perfectly possible for the system to spontaneously change from the high
entropy state to the low entropy state, and if you wait long enough it will
happen. It's just that the more molecules there are, the longer you'd have
to wait on average.
You can watch the 2nd Law being violated any time you like with a
microscope and a drop of water. According to the 2nd Law, an object
moving through a viscous fluid should slow down and stop and stay stopped.
But if you watch tiny dust particles in the water, they jump around
erratically. Stopped particles start moving. It's perpetual motion.
The particles are just getting shoved around by random water molecules.
rjfm2
Kristine Marr <kris...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> A singularity, besides being intuitively impossible, Is indefinable
>and therefore meaningless. It is qualitatively identical to the number
>1/0. 1/0 is indefinable and has no meaning in mathematics. Anybody,
>Hawking or otherwise, who postulates a singularity as part of a theory,
>is not doing science, and is wasting brain cells.
That does not meant that it is impossibility in reality. Any way its
very easy to say Hawking is wrong (or Einstein is wrong, etc) but you
have to prove it...
Rob.
Heretic
For those interested in reading Dr. Hawking's stuff, itself
http://www.bvx.ca/art&barbie/hawking.htm
rjfm2 <ke...@rjfm2.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<333bcb0...@NEWS.DEMON.CO.UK>...
Kristine Marr
Paul Filseth wrote:
Let's not forget what we're talking about here, Paul. An attemp to
justisfy a position which is in doubt empirically. Any christian or
atheist will reply in the same way, trying to support their world view,
with or without facts.
Richard Kulisz
In article <333bcb0...@NEWS.DEMON.CO.UK>,
rjfm2 <ke...@rjfm2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Kristine Marr <kris...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> A singularity, besides being intuitively impossible, Is indefinable
>>and therefore meaningless. It is qualitatively identical to the number
>>1/0. 1/0 is indefinable and has no meaning in mathematics. Anybody,
>>Hawking or otherwise, who postulates a singularity as part of a theory,
>>is not doing science, and is wasting brain cells.
A singularity is often defined as a mathematical point. But that's just to
make a ... err point. The point being made is that General Relativity is
a classical theory and thus allows nonsense like mathematical points. In
practice, a singularity is a DOT so small that conventional laws of physics
break down. So long as we have no quantum theory of gravity, General
Relativity will tell us that a singularity will collapse down to a
mathematical point. At scales of 10^-43 seconds the energy of the vacuum
(becomes infinite? - I forgot here) makes it a solid wall and spacetime
just breaks down. So you see, it's not a question of finding a theory to
supplant QM that explains what happens at smaller scales so much as finding
a theory that avoids the whole mathematical point stuff. Of course, QM
needs to be replaced because it has infinities (and superstring theory
eliminates them). A singularity is a dot where spacetime has a very
great curvature. Not infinite, just very, VERY, *VERY* great.
>That does not meant that it is impossibility in reality. Any way its
It means exactly that. Nature abhors the indefinite.
>very easy to say Hawking is wrong (or Einstein is wrong, etc) but you
>have to prove it...
Hawking /has/ been wrong. That's because, unlike Kristine here, his model
conserved information (a Good Thing). Of course, he later decided that info
was destroyed in black hole evaporation <pout>.
--
"If there were any people, outside of ideologues, who believed in the
viability of capitalism, that was finished by the time of the Great
Depression. By the time of the Great Depression, everybody realized this
system is hopeless. And nobody's even played with it since then." Noam Chomsky
Richard Kulisz
In article <9703280725.AA19099@dsa43>, Paul Filseth <p...@lsil.com> wrote:
> Mathematics isn't based on intuitive assumptions at all. That's
>like saying health is based on disease. Mathematics is based only on
>logic, and if there are any intuitive assumptions left in math then
>killing one off will be the next major advance.
Where have you been for the last few decades? Mathematics is *not* based
only on logic. That was a popular view for a while until someone proved
that building a mathematical system purely on logic is impossible. It's
because mathematics makes use of abstract concepts that are constructed
out of Real-World experience.
>>1. Concerning the concept of the singularity.
>> A singularity, besides being intuitively impossible, is indefinable
>>and therefore meaningless.
>
> Of course a singularity is definable. It's simply a point where a
>function has no finite limit.
That may work for mathematics but not for physics.
Jon Graehl
> >like saying health is based on disease. Mathematics is based only on
> >logic, and if there are any intuitive assumptions left in math then
> >killing one off will be the next major advance.
> Where have you been for the last few decades? Mathematics is *not* based
> only on logic. That was a popular view for a while until someone proved
> that building a mathematical system purely on logic is impossible. It's
> because mathematics makes use of abstract concepts that are constructed
> out of Real-World experience.
Mathematics can be built with only logic, and a few axioms of set theory
(which I suppose you could call "intuitive assumptions", but they are
really more like definitions). Could you please specify which theorem
you are talking about - it is not either of Godel's incompleteness (yes
you can prove things about mathematics using mathematics, isn't that
neat?). In fact, mathematics can be used to talk about things that do
not satisfy our intuitive assumptions. Attempting to use math in an
attempt to talk about the real world *does* involve intuitive
assumptions, but this doesn't mean mathematics has to be based on
intuitive assumptions.
Shaad M. Ahmad
bv...@freenet3.carleton.ca (Richard Kulisz) wrote in article
<5hnec7$5...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>:
>Where have you been for the last few decades? Mathematics is *not* based
>only on logic. That was a popular view for a while until someone proved
>that building a mathematical system purely on logic is impossible. It's
>because mathematics makes use of abstract concepts that are constructed
>out of Real-World experience.
Could you please cite the reference for such a proof? I am neither
a mathematician nor a logician (merely dabbled in them), but I was unaware
of such a proof. I thought all mathematical systems (Robinson's Arithmetic
(?) being a frequently used example), being axiomatic systems, could be
restated in logical notation.
Are you certain you are not confusing the issue with Godel's
Incompleteness Theorem?
Regards.
sh...@leland.stanford.edu - Shaad -
http://cmgm.stanford.edu/~ahmad/
the deviant biologist
Daeron
Paul Filseth wrote:
Daeron Wrote:
>>Hence, the more traditional
>>philosophy of science known as 'naive realism' which (because of
>>inroads made by QM for example) has had to give way to 'far realism'.
>>The Aspect photon-pair correlation experiments, for instance, cannot be
>>accounted for in any 'naive' (or near) realism framework.
>I'm not sure what you mean by "far realism", but Bohm's Pilot-Wave
>interpretation is a naively realistic framework, and predicts the outcome
>of such experiments correctly.
No, his framework is deterministic - not 'naively realistic'. It is
deterministic (wave function evolves explicitly in time), but it also
hinges on: a) the reality of de Broglie Waves and b) quantum nonlocality
(as embodied in his quantum potential - which acts in such a way that
its 'strength' does not diminish with distance).
'Naive realism' - by contrast, abhors the entire concept of nonlocality.
Given the choice (see Stenger "Physics and Psychics', Prometheus)
between a 'real-local' theory and a 'nonlocal' one, the naive realist
always opts for the former. Newtonian determinism and locality is
perhaps the best model for naive realism, in its purest form.
>If you're talking about Bell's Inequality,
>what Bell proved was that naive realism has to assume faster-than-light
>communication in order to model quantum mechanics.
No - it need only assume nonlocality. However, some authors (Stenger -
above) have deliberately construed that to mean 'superluminal signal'.
Objectively speaking, however, there is no need to import any signal
concept or basis into the discussion. Nonlocality (as demonstrated in
the Aspect exps.) could therefore be due - as Bohm notes (see his
'Wholeness and the Implicate Order', 1980, Routledge and Kegan Paul) to
an already existing higher dimensional connection. In this context,
the concept of 'signal' is superfluous, since the 'particles' etc
are *already* one.
I suspect that most of the problems here - including criticisms of
nonlocality, arise from a disingenuous use of language. Simply put,
we need to exercise more care in language in order to describe what
we are talking about in the quantum realm (Bohm went so far as to try
to develop an alternative language he called 'the rheomode' - see ref.
cited earlier).
>>For example, classical (Boolean) logic can no longer provide a basis for
>>understanding QM results. Hence, the rich field of 'quantum logic'.
>Considering that nobody seems to understand QM, period, it isn't
>clear that giving up classical logic helps.
But that's precisely the point of David Finkelstein who has done much
research in this area. We can't get off the mark in penetrating QM
concepts because we are still in the thrall of Boolean logic -
using Boolean approaches when quantum-logic is called for.
>But can you describe what
>is different about "quantum logic"?
I would prefer not to give a superficial (and more likely to be
misunderstood account) and don't have time here to write what is
required to convey what it is all about. However, try to get hold of
the book by Nick Herbert,'Quantum Reality-Beyond the New Physics',
Anchor Books (Doubleday), 1985, ISBN 0-385-23569-0, page 177.
His presentation is clear, to the point, and the best (and most
lucid) I have seen so far.