The thermodynamics of deity
Derek Potter
Is there any chance of a sober comment on the following? :)
The inflationary big bang, as I understand it, starts with a randomly
expanding region which in most respects is in thermal
quasi-equilibrium but is subject to a scalar field which undergoes a
random fluctuation. This (via a hypothetical phase change in the
hypothetical field) produces a reversal of gravity. So instead of
immediately collapsing again under its own weight, the region actually
inflates rapidly. Apart from the unfamiliar reversed gravity, the
medium is still subject to normal thermodynamics and therefore may be
considered as expanding adiabatically under an "external" force. Thus,
when sanity (normal gravity) returns, the medium is no longer in
thermal equilibrium, it is in a low entropy state with particles which
would otherwise have amalgamated back into the primorial medium being
well separated at all scales - from galactic to subatomic.
My thoughts are that this represents a "spontaneous" reduction in
entropy. Only that can't happen - without going into the math, the
universe has a certain number (or density) of microscopic states
available to it, most of them being "thermal equilibrium" at the
macroscopic level, it is most unlikely to randomly move to a minority
state which we call low entropy. I surmise that this is also true for
the complete system of primordial medium with scalar field. Any
spontaneous reduction in entropy must be at the expense of increasing
entropy elsewhere. Since, I assume, the primordial medium is in
equilibrium, I have to conclude that the scalar field is extremley low
entropy and represents the initial "winding up" of the universe. But
this also implies that with every inflationary event, the scalar warms
up a bit and will eventually lose its ability to create universes.
A driving force that itself needs to be wound up at some point is not
very satisfying intellectually, but if we bite the bullet and accept
that *something* has to be wound up, it may as well be something which
also moulds the manner in which a bubble of space-foam subsequently
inflates. However, it seems to me that we cannot attribute this
winding up to a random fluctuation, however infrequently these events
may be. It would have to be a local entropy fluctuation (on the Plank
scale prior to inflation, I guess) big enough for the entire universe.
That's OK if the primordial medium is infinite in extent but then one
has the problem of near-misses. (The universe we live in is
extraordinarily huge. There ought to vastly more that are smaller -
practically all of them will be only just big enough. If we have
chosen to live in one universe out of this collection at random, it
ought to be one of those small ones. It could, of course, be that
there is some other physical effect that makes universes of our size
the popular choice, but is that an integral part of inflation or just
another arbitrary tweak to the theory? It seems to me, therefore, that
one is faced either with a universe that needed winding up, either at
the big bang OR at the beginning of the "hyperuniverse", or else the
curious scenario that we are probably living in a very small universe
that exhibits "mere appearence of size" ;) I suppose, ratther than
have a preferred size that is round about the size of our universe, we
have one that is vastly bigger, making the problem of the origin of
life and Fermi's go away. We are not alone, but there isn't a
snowflake in hell's chance of ever meeting LGM and SET is a waste of
money.)
Creationists speculate that 2LT did not rule before the
Fall/Flood/Last Thursday but the statistical basis for 2LT is well
understood (as above) and the only way to suspend it is to have some
low entropy entity constantly interfering to force the universe into
unlikely states. I am not sure that the thermodynamics of God are
necessarily the same as a mechanical system, He may be assumed to be
infinite for a start so any finite increase in His entropy might not
be noticed. However, from the scientific PoV, am I correct in thinking
that the "fluctuation" allegedly responsible for our universe's early
inflation must itself be coupled with an entropy sink of some kind,
which in turn must eventually "wear out" unless infinite? This would
make time supremely asymmetrical and the much-touted symmetry of
physical laws purely a local approximation.
Lucas Bachmann
One could model god as a computer simulating the universe. This is
especially true from a digital physics standpoint.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/0008022
http://www.mtnmath.com/digital.html
There is no reason in this model to proclaim god as infinite. Just big
enough to run the universe. Thermodynamics might not apply to the god
computer, certainly I don't think it's reasonable to have the
"simulated" entropy of our digital physics universe jump out of God's
RAM and affect the computer as a whole. Anticipating the response that
a computer needs energy to run I'll posit that a cellular automata
computer runs on the rules of its space - not energy governed by
thermodynamics. Perhaps I'm mistaken on that point and Cellular
Automata does have it's own thermodynamics?
I'll conclude with that there are likely a number of false premises and
mistakes in your (and my and the theorists') understanding of the big
bang which also make the deductions about thermodynamics and need for
wind-ups mistaken. I don't have the time or expertise to deal with that
aspect of it. I found the application of entropy to a model of god the
interesting aspect of the post so that's what I chose to discuss.
Lucas Bachmann
Derek Potter
The inflationary big bang, as I understand it, starts with a randomly
expanding region which in most respects is in thermal
quasi-equilibrium but is subject to a scalar field which undergoes a
random fluctuation. This (via a hypothetical phase change in the
hypothetical field) produces a reversal of gravity. So instead of
immediately collapsing again under its own weight, the region actually
inflates rapidly. Apart from the unfamiliar reversed gravity, the
medium is still subject to normal thermodynamics and therefore may be
considered as expanding adiabatically under an "external" force. Thus,
when sanity (normal gravity) returns, the medium is no longer in
thermal equilibrium, it is in a low entropy state with particles which
would otherwise have amalogamated back into the entended black hole of
the primorial medium being well separated at all scales - from
galactic to subatomic.
My thoughts are that this represents a "spontaneous" reduction in
entropy. Only that can't happen - without going into the math, the
universe has a certain number (or density) of microscopic states
available to it, most of them being "thermal equilibrium" at the
macroscopic level, it is most unlikely to randomly move to a minority
state which we call low entropy. I surmise that this is also true for
the complete system of primordial medium with scalar field. Any
spontaneous reduction in entropy must be at the expense of increasing
entropy elsewhere. Since, I assume, the primordial medium is assumed
to be in equilibrium, I have to conclude that the scalar field is
extrmeley low entropy and represents the initial "winding up" of the
universe. But this also implies that with every inflationary event,
the scalar warms up and will eventually lose its ability to create
universes.
A driving force that itself needs to be wound up at some point is not
very satisfying intellectually, but if we bite the bullet and accept
that *something* has to be would up, it may as well be something which
also moulds the manner in which a bubble of space-foam can inflate.
However, it seems to me that we cannot attribute this winding up to a
random fluctuation, however infrequent these events may be. It would
have to be a local entropy fluctuation (on the Plank scale prior to
inflation, I guess) big enough for the entire universe. That's OK if
the primordial medium is infinite in extent but then one has the
problem of near-misses. The universe we live in is extraordinarily
huge. There ought to vastly more that are smaller - practically all of
them will be only just big enough. If we have chosen to live in one at
random, it ought to be one of those. It could, of course, be that
there is some other physical effect that makes universes of our size
the popular choice, but has anyone seriously proposed that?
It seems to me, therefore, that one is faced either with a universe
that needed winding up, either at the big bang OR at the beginning of
the "hyperuniverse", or else the curious scenario that we are probably
living in a very small universe that exhibits "mere appearence of
size" ;)
Seriously, creationists speculate that 2LT did not rule before the
Fall/Flood/Last Thursday but the statistical basis for it is well
understood (as above) and the only way to suspend it is to have some
low entropy entity constantly interfering to force the universe into
unlikely states. I am not sure that the thermodynamics of God are
necessarily the same as a mechanical system, He may be assumed to be
infinite for a start so any finite increase in His entropy might not
be noticed. However, from the scientific PoV, am I correct in thinking
that the "fluctuation" allegedly responsible for our universe's early
inflation must itself be coupled with an entropy sink of some kind,
which in turn must eventually "wear out"?
Derek Potter
copy. :(