2nd law of thermodynamics argument
Offline Hello everyone. I am a self-described Atheist. Recently I have been attending meetings of our church group on my college campus. They have been hosting weekly sessions where they show videos from a series titled 'The Truth Project' which is a well produced and obviously well funded lecture series in which a christian apologetics 'professor' supports Christianity as academically valid. I was curious about the arguments that Christians might have so I thought that I would learn a little bit more about it.
I have been through about 5 weeks now, and am surprised by how convincing some of their arguments are. The one in particular that has been frustrating me is their argument about the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the entropy of the universe. They state that our universe is slowly reaching an equilibrium in which heat will spread out across the emptiness of space and create an even temperature which is too low to support life. They argue that this indicates that the universe must have infact had a beginning and that it is impossible for the universe to have simply always existed because the universe would have reached this equilibrium by now.
I am no student of astrophysics, and when I am presented with this argument I don't know how to respond. Is this true? Does science indicate that the universe is slowly reaching an equilibrium with no hope for the recollection of matter and energy to cause another big bang? Is it true that science indicates the universe had a beginning?
What does this mean?
- Login to post comments
- Login to post comments
is "oh" or "oo".
Uh, all the things I mentioned as being irrelevant to 2nd Law based arguments very much ARE a part of this universe. It only takes one something to invalidate the premise that all "omniscient gods" are somehow subject to 2nd Law arguments.
I realize I can be hard to follow because I don't claim G-d is a bearded old white guy sitting on a throne deciding who to zap tomorrow, but be VERY careful what you claim I've said because I've had people claim I've said things that are against my religion to say in the first place.
And the "h" in "Herder" is capitalized. Furry Cat Herder. And the cats are furry, not me.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
Every statement of the UP I have seen or can find refers to momentum not velocity.
Altho I just listened to an audio clip of Heisenberg himself, and he did use the word 'velocity'.
Obviously the momentum is rather directly connected to velocity, so the uncertainty in momentum will translate rather directly to an equivalent uncertainty in velocity, so I think momentum is used in the equations because that is what pairs with position, regardless of the mass, to make the relationship with Planck's constant.
From http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08.htm
I realize that our instruments do introduce error in practice, of course, but that is not relevant to the UP.
The point of the uncertainty principle is that even with 'perfect' instruments we cannot determine the position and momentum of a particle at any instant precisely.
The commuting properties are either position (q) and momentum (p), or energy (E) and the exact time (t) at which the measurement applies.
If delta is the uncertainy in the measurement, then the relations are:
(delta q) X (delta p) >= h/(4 pi )
and
(delta E) X (delta t) >= h/(4 pi )
where h = Planck's constant
So if we devise an experiment which pins down the position of a particle very closely, we have no idea what its momentum was at that instant.
Or we cannot measure the energy at a precise instant of time with any precision, but we can estimate the average energy more precisely if we allow the time to be within a range.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
For every pair of properties, you can check to see whether or not they commute. Momentum and position are a good example of this since deltax*deltap is such an important term and since that was the example originally used to formulate this idea. But think of p and x not commuting as just being a particular example of how certain pairs of properties don't commute. If someone claims to be able to simultaneously measure some pair of properties to some degree of accuracy, you can check to see if those two properties commute and you can check to see how being able to more accurately measure one will decrease the accuracy of the measurement of the other.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Physics tells us nothing about the beginning of the universe, for all we know it could have always been here, for eternity.
All we do know is that it inflated 13.5 billion years ago so that it looks like it does now.
I understand all that, of course.
One significance of the particular pairs used in the definition is that the magnitudes of the uncertainties in each is that their product is bound by the fundamental constant h.
Any pair of properties should be reducible to either E and t or x and p to apply the equation and calculate the minimum product of the uncertainty.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Okay, my mistake. I'm not young anymore, either. Despite my being the loyal opposition
I hope you're still enjoying your stay here...
Personally I battle with the idea of an ethereal being existing in another dimension, utterly impossible to prove or refute.
It's interesting to me that theists manage to embrace the concept of a god completely separate from this universe yet struggle to come to terms with
infinitely more possible things, like the evolution of living organisms over time.
But let's talk about something specific. The anthropomorphic god. There are anthropomorphic characteristics - not arms and hands and eyes FurryCat - but behaviour patterns such as choosing one group
of people as your special favourites - your besties. Then there are those intensely human feelings god is alleged to possess. Things like love, anger, rage, revenge, and pride. And there's more.
God's insistence on obedience, his concept of retribution, the business of sacrifice, his capacity for creativity, his need for our adoration and loyalty, his scales of morality and every other characteristic
we quantify him as possessing in terms of our human understanding. All this is more profoundly and undeniably anthropomorphic than the business of the old man in the sky.
It's not possible to define the character of a sentient being outside the boundaries of our own minds and it's certain this frailty restricts god sorely.
There's no surprise in finding that the greatest qualities in the eyes of our god are those we treasure most in ourselves.
If you believe in a removed and unavailable and un-intruding god is it possible to claim any of these things about god at all?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Abject idiocy.
Not everyone is a physicist. I myself don't understand how we have pinpointed the beginning of everything, and don't understand how we can say with confidence there wasn't something before. If you can explain it it'd be greatly appreciated.
My Website About Roller Coaster Design
The first statement is not clear. It can only refer to whatever preceded the BB.
But certainly we know that our Universe has NOT been here forever, it emerged at the time of the BB.
Now what was the history, if any, of the 'metaverse', we are still in pretty much pure speculation, altho with a number of proposed theories, such as colliding multi-dimensionsal 'branes'.
Within our known universe, at the end of the inflationary epoch, the Universe was still very different from what we see today.
An awful lot more happened, and physics and cosmology have provided a fairly detailed picture right back to a very short time after the initial singularity event.
So that second statement is not accurate in any way.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Bob Spence beat me to the punch on this! The statement itself bothers me because it is an example of the worst kind of ipse-dixitism that plagues popular discussions of scientific concepts. Merely averring something as truth without substantiated reasoning is abject idiocy in my opinion. As to your note that not everyone is a physicist, I would mention that my background is in nuclear engineering and not cosmology. As such, I would not presume to present a detailed discussion of the origins of the universe. If I may suggest a few texts that I feel treat the subject excellently, I would submit:
Hawking, Stephen (1988). A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books (ISBN 0553380168)
Greene, Brian (1999). The Elegant Universe. Random House (ISBN 0375708111)
Penrose, Sir Roger (2004). The Road to Reality. Vintage Books (ISBN 0679454438)
I think he considered the metaverse to be synonymous with the universe. AKA saying with certainty that there was nothing before the BB is akin to saying there is or isn't a god existing outside of our universe, even though it is impossible to know (as of right now, or maybe forever).
I think it comes down to what is defined as our universe. If we were to somehow discover something happening before the BB, would we consider it part of OUR universe? Or an event existing outside of our universe?
My Website About Roller Coaster Design
I want to read all of those. I was just saying that I (think) I got the gist of what he was saying (see above). And a degree in nuclear engineering entails significantly more physics than most degrees... lol
My Website About Roller Coaster Design
Nah, according to the media, we're just making it up as we go along!
I know, trying to pin religious behavior on scientists... pssh.
I just think you were a bit rough on him, because even though he said physics doesn't tell us anything about the beginning of the universe, he at least understands that the universe is 13.5 billion years old and that there was a period of inflation. That is significantly more so than common knowledge, which leads me to give him the benefit of the doubt in assuming he meant that there is the possibility of events (and consequently time and our universe, I guess) occurring before the BB itself.
My Website About Roller Coaster Design
I would go with ~13.7 billion years, but...
You're correct in saying that I was a bit harsh, however, I have found (to no one's surprise, I'm sure) that unfounded statements that can be misinterpreted do much more harm than good; consider if a person ignorant of even the basics of science read this statement and took it as fact: a new level of ignorance has just been established. Perhaps my sesquipedalian and syntax-obsessed nature has gotten to me...either that or the copious amounts of bourbon I've had at this point!
Haha, can't go wrong with copious amounts of bourbon. My poison of choice tends to be vodka (for monetary reasons, not taste).
My Website About Roller Coaster Design
In the more Russian moments of my existence (all apologies to my Norwegian fore-bearers), I have been known to judiciously employ a snort or two (or nine) of the white death, keeping to Grey Goose mostly. As to bourbon, I am a fan of both Eagle Rare and Booker's (in view of the financial situation to which you alluded, take note that Eagle Rare- if you can find it- is usually less than $30). Nonetheless, let it be known that physics is fueled by brown liquors- which understandably clash with the black coffee of the next morning when one has to teach moderator temperature coefficients for eight hours...
Haha, well what I drink is a stereotypical russian named brand that sells for $15 for 1.75L. It almost isn't worth it lol But I'll keep Eagle Rare in mind for the future.
My Website About Roller Coaster Design
Yeah. So now that we've established that you know about as much about quantum mechanics as I do (that is, nothing), you can go ahead and stop pretending that you're an authority on the subject.
You might need new reading glasses, gramma. Bob didn't propose that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics necessarily invalidates magical deities; he just said that Yahweh - the magical deity proposed in the Hebrew Bible - would be violating this law when he magically poofed everything into being.
You probably don't believe that happened anyway, because you can't allow yourself that much cognitive dissonance, but you've got your Depends in a bunch over something that hasn't been said.
Oh. And unless my meds have made me blind, I'm pretty sure I didn't typo, "Bob is an idiot." I separated 'is an idiot' with quotation marks to denote that it was your claim (and that is was lolztastic), which is a common contemporary literary trend (...as long as you consider 'contemporary' to mean 'since the beginning of this decade or so'). Maybe you can ask one of your grandkids to help you get caught-up with the crazy, break neck pace that literature is hurtling forward at.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Hi FurryCatHerder (I love your screen name, by the way!). You mentioned that you got a quantum equation correct while Bob Spence did not; I was wondering if you could direct me to that post. On a more personal note, while I find your ad hominem attacks to be somewhat distasteful, I nonetheless admire your conviction in defense of ideas that the vast majority of contributors find inane. I look forward to hearing from you in the future!
Nah, dude - she was saying that she got the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics 'argument' correct, not that she was able to draft quantum equations that Bob couldn't.
Of course, I can understand your confusion, since the 'argument' in question exists only in her imagination.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Forgive my innocence...
That would certainly explain why I couldn't find such a post!
Submission? Realising that I have to spell every detail out to stop you finding a way to interpret what I say as not excluding some off-the-wall idea, that you can then ridicule.
You seem to be working overtime to find ways to rubbish my statements. I am not even trying to pretend you are stupid, just pointing out that you don't seem to understand this stuff as well as you may think you do. Not the same as thinking of you as 'stupid'. I will leave all the ad hominen attacks to you.
I at no time assumed God was assumed to exist in this universe.
I never assumed God was seen by any significant number of adherents of any faith as "an old bearded man in the sky", or anthing like that - you are the only one who ever brought that up.
With that in mind, the scriptures do refer to man being made "in the image of God", so there presumably is supposed to be some analogy at some level.
I am not "appealing to heresy", merely the naive views of many believers, which is undeniable, especially among fundy Xians in the USA. Dunno about Judaism in any detail, altho I do know there are different sects, so it is not an absolutely unified set of beliefs.
All total misrepresentations of my arguments.
I am sticking to what there appears to be evidence for, and I have explicitly asked several times if you could clarify where you see I have something wrong, as I am genuinely curious as to how your views differ from what I have encountered among Xians and other followers of Judaism.
Instead of trying to genuinely enlighten me, you seem intent on 'catching me out' on some misunderstanding or error and using it as an excuse to insult and mock my 'ignorance' and false assumptions.
There you go again, I have never assumed any such thing. You are demonstrating that you have completely misjudged where I am coming from. Your previous experience appears to have left you locked into this presumption of what I believe, or assume, or am trying to argue, and rather than try and grasp just what I am trying to ask of you, just throwing your rehearsed set of accusations and refutations at me, waiting to jump on any hint of the common responses you have come to expect.
Begging the conclusion? Ok, could you try and at least hint at how your concept of 'God', or 'G-d' differs from that? Please? Instead of just ridiculing and insulting us for not understanding your G-d?
I have spent time in countries dominated by every major religion, and tried to see how they went about daily life, what their places of worship were like, and so on. That includes China, Central and South-East Asia, Egypt, half-a-dozen or more other countries in Africa, Russia, various Pacific Islands, even that socially confused nation the US of A. Never actually set foot in Israel, just spent a week on a dive-boat working out of Eilat. Did get to talk to some Israelis over dinner in Sharm El Sheikh. So I have been in quite a number of mosques and wats (buddhist temples), so I am more aware than most people of the diversity of culture and belief across the globe.
In what sense was I "pretending that every other religion on the planet is Christianity"?
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
FurryCatHerder has been a bit vague with her own beliefs but what she's saying really isn't any different then the original argument the OP was asking about. That some sort of god exists "outside" of the universe, time, reality, etc... the excuse is basically the same.
If Furry denies all forms of anthropomorphisms then she has no leg to stand on, period. It's still special pleading either way.
Q: How can a fridge magnet cling against gravity endlessly without draining a power source?
A: It can't ... fridge magnets are impossible according to today's science. It certainly takes tremendous energy to cling to the side of a cliff, supporting our own weight against gravity, and before long we would tire and fall. Yet a fridge magnet clings endlessly to the fridge by magnetic energy. And, as both our science and our experience tell us, such an expenditure of energy requires that a power source be drawn upon to support such effort. Yet a permanent magnet not only maintains its strength indefinitely (no theory or text- book shows the power drain characteristics of a permanent magnet as it clings against the pull of gravity), but there isn’t even a power source in sight! Endless magnetic energy apparently emanates from permanent magnets without any explanation in our science. The only explanation that any physicist will give for this mystery is that there is no mystery since the magnet isn't moving, which gives a zero result if you plug this into the Work equation – a severely flawed diversionary tactic that was exposed above. No physicist will acknowledge the error of applying the Work equation to deny the ongoing magnetic energy expenditure, nor agree that a power source is required to cling energetically against gravity.
This excerpt from an article on magnetism in Discover Magazine, Dec. 2002, further makes this point:
Moreover, asking that question [why some non-metallic objects are magnetic] inevitably lets you in on a surprising secret: Physicists are also a little fuzzy about those bits of iron alloy attached to your refrigerator. "Only a few people understand -- or think they understand -- how a permanent magnet works," says Makarova [a Russian physicist working at Umea University in Sweden]. "The magnet of everyday life is not a simple thing. It's a quantum- mechanics thing ... I'm just working as an engineer, trying to find out where the magnetism comes from."
I think someone needs to invent "magnetons", imaginary particles that magnet and fridge shoot at each other and by that, they don't push each other away, but magically attract themselves.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Are you serious here Luminon?
I mean, are you actually quoting this question about the energy flow in a magnet as an example of really stupid/ignorant ideas which you are not silly enough to believe? I can't always be sure I am reading you accurately.
Because it shows a really deep misunderstanding of some really basic physics.
It requires no more energy for a magnet to cling to another one, or to the side of a fridge, than it does for something stuck to the fridge by a physically sticky surface, or a piece of adhesive tape. it only requires an effort for a person to continue to hang on to something because of the way our muscles work - they consume chemical energy whenever they are exerting a force, whether moving or not.
This would be somewhat analogous to an electromagnet, which uses the magnetic effect of an electric current flowing in a coil to magnetise a 'soft' magnetic material in which the individual magnetic domains tend to return to a non-aligned state when no external field is applied. Since ordinary wire at room temperature has electrical resistance, it requires energy to keep the current flowing in the wire, and so keep the field on. The energy required to keep an electromagnet stuck to a metal surface is all converted to heat.
Such inefficiencies are often associated with systems designed to exert force while moving, they still may consume energy just to exert a force even if not moving. They can avoid that problem by adding a physical locking mechanism of some sort.
I hope you really understand all that, and were just satirizing the mistaken ideas in the original question. Because if you really agree with the idea that permanent magnets require a source of energy to stay stuck to a fridge, you are advertizing the fact that you are totally unqualified to judge anything scientific.
There is a static amount of energy contained in a magnetic field, but there is no flow of energy. It only requires an input of energy when you want to increase the strength of the field, or a flow of energy out of the field to reduce its strength.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
As for the metaphor with physical bonds or adhesivity, that doesn't answer the question, because;
Q: How do heavy objects rest on a table without its molecules giving way, collapsing the table?
A: Science has no viable explanation for this today. This mystery is similar to the mystery of the fridge magnet. Atomic bonds are said to result from electromagnetic energy attracting and holding atoms together. Yet, there is no denying that tremendous ongoing energy expenditure is required to hold the
structure of a table together under the weight of a heavy object. Where does this energy come from? How quickly does this subatomic power source drain as it expends all this energy? Today's science has no explanation for this everyday occurrence, so such questions are never discussed.
Don't let yourself get irritated. I'm just questioning some fundamental scientific theories. This has not much to do with understanding. I need to find out which theories are legitimate, and if claims based on these theories are legitimate as well. IOW, I make sure there are no straw men around.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
You are serious, OMFG.
Static electrical forces stop things falling through a table. The mechanism is really similar to what stops the top layer of a solid object falling thru the rest of it, or simply what allows a solid object to maintain its shape, that stops one atom passing thru another.
Magnetic levitation requires no flow of energy either. If you place one magnet in position floating above another, the only flow of energy required is supplied by your muscles lifting the floating one into position.
Gravitational slingshots are unfortunately poorly described to convey the impression that energy is coming from the gravitational field, whereas in fact gravity is just connecting the spacecraft with the earth to allow energy to be exchanged between them. The energy is actually coming from the the energy of motion of the Earth in its orbit, so if the spacecraft gains energy from the manoeuvre, the earth slows down slightly in its orbit. It may also be used to slow a spacecraft, in which case the earth speeds up slightly.
You have described nothing which is not thoroughly explained by science, and pretty basic science at that.
You really need to understand the scientific concepts of force and energy.
Force is that which tends to accelerate, or decelerate, a mass. For an object sitting on a table, there are considered to be two forces involved, the force due to the Earth's gravity tending to accelerate the object toward the center of the Earth at 32 feet/sec/sec. But it is balanced by an equal and opposite 'reaction' force exerted by the electrostatic repulsion between the electrons in the outer shells of the atoms in the bottom surface of the object and the top surface of the table. That is an example of Newton's third law of Motion.
Energy is is exchanged, or flows, in various ways. In simple mechanical situations, it flows when a force moves an object through a distance against some opposing force, such as friction. In the case of someone sliding an object steadily across a table, chemical energy is released in the person's arm, most of it as heat energy, but some as mechanical energy, and is transferred thru the object into heat energy in the object and the table due to friction.
By definition, one Joule of energy is required to move an object one meter against a force of one Newton. One Newton is the force required to accelerate a mass of one kilogram by one meter/sec every second. It is about one tenth of the force exerted by earth's gravity on a one kilogram mass, which is what we refer to as its weight. So a force of one kilogram weight is about 9.8 newtons, since the acceleration due to Earth's gravity at the surface is about 9.8 meter/sec/sec.
If there were no friction, such as when you throw an object, the energy transferred to the object is converted into kinetic energy (of motion). Some of that energy is transferred to energy of motion of the air as it passes thru it, and ultimately into more heat energy when it strikes the ground.
Heat energy is ultimately a form of random energy of the vibrations of the atoms and molecules of matter.
There - that is a short introductory course in the science of force and energy.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
People skipped over something.
"Appeal to Heresy"
No such thing. Making up fallacies?
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Wouldn't say "nothing" My background is engineering of four different flavors, which tends to include Physics up to that level. Of the four, "Electrical" is my least studied, so Quantum wasn't required, only an understanding of what IS and ISN'T going on in the physical universe at the level of Quantum Mechanics.
Uh, no. Whether or not G-d exists (and G-d's name definitely was never "Yahweh" -- we ain't got not "w", but thanks for playing along!), the Big Bang (which I accept, not that you'd understand why since you think all Theists are morons, apparently) doesn't violate the 2nd Law. The 2nd Law doesn't even speak to the instant in time when the Big Bang Singularity first came into existence. Every instance since -- absolutely. That instant? No, not at all.
I grew up in a house where "Science" was very highly valued. And believe it or not -- plenty of Theists really do believe in the Big Bang, and Evolution, and the superiority of Coke over Pepsi. "Science" is a "How" kind of thing, and unless I missed it, most religious texts aren't science manuals. Yeah, some fundamentalist Christians think it is, but I've read Jewish, Christian and Muslim texts, cover to cover, and none of them say "Thus sayeth the LORD -- This is a science manual!"
Yeah, and maybe you could find the part of the Torah that say "This is a science manual, and if you don't believe it's a science manual, you're going to the 'Hell' that's also not mentioned in here." You could get your parents to read it to you, since you obviously aren't old enough to read yet.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."