The universe and its beginnings.

Shabonkerz
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
The universe and its beginnings.

Concerning the concept of cause and effect, I am able to observe a couple of things about it.

1) All causes only change the state of matter/energy. No cause has ever demonstrated to create or destroy matter/energy.
2) All causes require an acting agent that consists of matter/energy.

The claim that the universe requires a creator seems to be inconsistent with what is observed here. What are the arguments that demand a creator if we don't know that matter/energy can be created?

Additionally, are there some clear resources for big bang/big crunch theory, and other theories concerning the beginning of the universe? I've I always thought the universe was periodic where it would expand from a singularity and collapse into a singularity and repeat over and over.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
How about a Cosmos of

Shabonkerz

Sounds reasonable to me. Just to add some sauce to that,  

"No Beginning, No Creator" - How about an ULTRA Cosmos of infinite big bang Universes, way way out there happening this very moment ? Orgasmic dancing, of all the "stuff" that is out there !

                                                   Just as we are !

                                                          

                                                How far does it go ?

                      < ---------------------------------------------------------------->

                                                   Which way is up ?

                                                          I'm lost !

 


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Shabonkerz wrote:Concerning

Shabonkerz wrote:
Concerning the concept of cause and effect, I am able to observe a couple of things about it. 1) All causes only change the state of matter/energy. No cause has ever demonstrated to create or destroy matter/energy. 2) All causes require an acting agent that consists of matter/energy. The claim that the universe requires a creator seems to be inconsistent with what is observed here. What are the arguments that demand a creator if we don't know that matter/energy can be created? Additionally, are there some clear resources for big bang/big crunch theory, and other theories concerning the beginning of the universe? I've I always thought the universe was periodic where it would expand from a singularity and collapse into a singularity and repeat over and over.
You're quite right about the god that creates, it is inconsistent with reality.

About the universe, I believe there is little doubt within the scientific community that the eventual end of the universe will be heat-death.  There doesn't appear to be an end to the expansion force until such time as everything is so far from everything else and so cold that matter and energy can obtain no higher states than absolute zero.  It would seem that there will be no contraction of the universe at the time that the expansion force wears out.  It will be a cold (unimaginably so) and vast (also unimaginably so) wasteland.  That is, no big crunch will occur.  The evidence that exists that supports the big bang is massive and it is beyond my ability to cite the main supportive evidence, but I believe cosmic background radiation, red shift, the observed weakness of gravity, the increasing speed of expansion and the necessary result of entropy when the distances of objects relative to each other on the cosmological scale are factored into the expansion equation.

I have heard an alternative theory that makes use of the same evidence and draws a different conclusion, but the evidence is interpreted using several untested theories such as string theory(?).  The theory, if I recall correctly, has something to do with Branes... Brane theory and suggests that the universe, after heat-death is reborn?  Give it a look up, but I wouldn't be convinced of the veracity of the outcomes of the theory until it can be shown that the models the theory is based on are viable.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
These videos are fantastic: 

These videos are fantastic:

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Kevin , thanks , yes very

Kevin , thanks , yes very good. I hadn't seen all this series. I will pass this on .....

     Just to add, who would assume our bang is unique ? How many such "Big Bang Universes" as ours, out there, in all of space and time ?!! ummm ?   


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Kevin

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Kevin , thanks , yes very good. I hadn't seen all this series. I will pass this on .....

     Just to add, who would assume our bang is unique ? How many such "Big Bang Universes" as ours, out there, in all of space and time ?!! ummm ?   

Certain allegoric source describes six universes rotating around a central one, where is no time, no enthropy, and where God, or the Source, resides. The rest of space around is...I already don't remember, but it's special somehow, different physical basis, or whatever.  It's just a legend, a piece of modern mythology, and the only source ever I had seen to mention multiple universes.
 


I don't count the infinite number of parallel universes theory. I have never seen in my lifetime anything which would confirm it. It's a nice thought exercise of "what if", but nothing more. And I should know if it would be anything about it. We have material universe, which is a bottom end of the spectrum, and then the spectrum goes up, through at least 7 levels of existence finer than material, we can be aware of, and this can continue in this fashion really far. But these are not alternative versions of the universe, they have their unique properties and purpose.

As for the beginning and end of the universe... It seems that the matter itself was created by condensation of etheric matter. When etheric matter is concentrated, pressed together, charged enough, it directly influences a normal matter, or becomes it. Bang.
So, I personally suspect, when I know that solid matter is convertible back and forth on etheric matter, than when all matter in the universe disperses enough, and gets all cold, that it will just be dissolved into etheric state again, like a cube of sugar, which was crumbled enough to dissolve faster. Once all matter will be etheric, the cleanup of the dead universe may be even faster, because what is not solid-material, is really easy to handle. And so this process may continue in two directions - converting the etheric matter again on it's higer equivalents, till it merges with the Source from which it came. Or, which is a second thought and not really probable, to be collected together with greater ease than a physical matter ever could be, and start a new Big Bang again.
This is only my theoretizing and should not be taken seriously and I shouldn't be accused of taking it seriously. It's just a thought that came to my mind.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Luminon, I enjoy bouncing

Luminon, I enjoy bouncing off your "thoughts" 

      Just to say in other words, regarding my previous thoughts.

     I don't regard the amazing "Big Bang" as unique, big nor small, in the immense scheme of the vaster singularity of un-measurable infinite size of bigger and smaller. Layers of other "dimensions" is another factor, but all is simply connected as to what I call the "material". How many other "Big Bangs" going on right now this moment in the vast far unseeable distance ? Oh, and the undetectable under our noses !?!?

I need more words !!!  Have we ever discovered anything that we could truly call unique ?

   Hey, might we be an experiment , Big Bang and all, of a nearly unimaginable giant alien scientist, stuck under it's microscope !

Yeah, thinking is fun !    LSD !  Watch out , Danger Danger .... I can fly ! , Opps, OUCH !

              


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1389
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Shabonkerz

Thomathy wrote:

Shabonkerz wrote:
Concerning the concept of cause and effect, I am able to observe a couple of things about it. 1) All causes only change the state of matter/energy. No cause has ever demonstrated to create or destroy matter/energy. 2) All causes require an acting agent that consists of matter/energy. The claim that the universe requires a creator seems to be inconsistent with what is observed here. What are the arguments that demand a creator if we don't know that matter/energy can be created? Additionally, are there some clear resources for big bang/big crunch theory, and other theories concerning the beginning of the universe? I've I always thought the universe was periodic where it would expand from a singularity and collapse into a singularity and repeat over and over.
You're quite right about the god that creates, it is inconsistent with reality.

About the universe, I believe there is little doubt within the scientific community that the eventual end of the universe will be heat-death.

Like it or not, the oscillating or eternal universe model is one well worth considering, especially when one considers variants of it like Smolin's model.

I've made my thoughts well know years ago, and may as well again, here's an excerpt:

Atheists are very well aware of the first law of thermodynamics, and it is this very concept that makes what theists propose, a creation ex nihlo, ridiculous.

Creation ex nihlo is a classic failure of human perception.

No painting comes to exist without a painter, no building is built without an architect, etc. Seems logical enough, but do these people create from literally nothing or is it more accurate to say they assemble existing materials? For no painter starts with nothing - they start with blank canvass and paint. No builder starts with nothing, they start with brick, mortar and blueprints. Something never comes from literally nothing.

Looking at things from the perspective of a First Cause argument, which theists are quite fond of, for something to exercise influence on the universe this causal agent must have already existed. Something nonexistent can't serve as a causal agent; thus causality must assume existence. Theists arguing for a creation of the universe ex nihlo, however have their logic backward - that existence assumes causation.

What the atheist can offer is a scientific explanation that meshes with conventional logic.

If we take matter-energy to be eternal, uncaused - as our best science seems to suggest (see the first law again), then existence is simply axiomatic. The universe just is, and the Big Bang becomes more or less a transitional event. The universe as we know it began with the Big Bang, but the matter-energy was always there, it must have been - to say otherwise turns all of physics as we understand it on its head.

We know that matter-energy is conserved - always, in every instance we have ever observed or theorized about. It is but a simple and very reasonable extrapolation to then say that matter-energy has always been, and it is empirically evident. There is no need to postulate a creator or a creation ex nihlo.

Not only does science point to existence being axiomatic, but simple logic does as well, because “nothing” is an incoherent concept. “Nothing” is not lack, not empty, not the void, not darkness, not the absence of anything, because the absence of anything would still be something. So again, the concept of creation from literally nothing makes no sense, because “nothing” quite literally cannot exist.

In the end, the theist is reduced to demanding to know why there is something rather than nothing – but this too begs the question, because it presumes that nothing or non-existence ought to be the natural state of things. This is like presuming the sky is supposed to be green and then citing the fact that it is blue as evidence for a Creator.

A scientist does not ask "why is there something rather than nothing", but rather "why SHOULDN'T there be something rather than nothing". There isn't anything about the universe that suggests it shouldn't be here and be exactly as we observe it be.

All of that aside, current quantum theories may in fact have room for our universe coming from what would be perceptually (not literally) nothing. Such theories included the universe arising from a quantum vacuum fluctuation that propagated itself, proposed by Ed Tyron in the early 1970s and a variation upon this proposed by Alex Vilenkin in the 80s that was dubbed quantum tunneling.

The most lucid theory going at the moment, IMO, was proposed by Stephen Hawking and James Hartle, and is often dubbed the “no boundary proposal”. Their view provides a description of the universe in its entirety, viewed as a self-contained entity, with no reference to anything that might have come before it – pretty much what I’ve laid out above. For Hawking, this description is timeless, for as one looks at earlier and earlier times, they find that the universe is not eternal, but has no creation event either. Instead, at times of the order of Planck time (10-43 seconds), our classical understanding of space-time is reduced to quantum soup. In Hawking's exact words:

“The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.” - A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 136.

Smolin's theory of fecund universes illustrate what I'm trying to describe quite well, I think. He essentially theorizes that each black hole is the beginning of a new universe, and there is evidence to support this on the quantum level. What we believe happened at the big bang and what we observe to happen at black holes are quite similar. Now while this is an ad hoc theory to a certain degree, there is a distinction that must be made:

In the end, naturalistic explanations of why and how we are here are infinitiley less ad hoc than supernaturalistic ones, and that's what should concern us as critical thinkers and scientists.

 

The Big Bang most certainly does not violate the second law of thermodynamics either (as is often the objection to such ideas), nor does evolution (I never get tired of hearing that one). Theists and creationists would do themselves a gigantic favor to stop pontificating on subjects they clearly have no understanding of.

First of all, entropy is not a measure of order or disorder, per se, nor does it stipulate that ordered systems are not possible, even for a closed system.

Let me assure you that what follows is greatly simplified, but I wanted to take a look at the actual energy states of the universe, pre and post Big Bang.

The total mass-energy of the universe is constant (1st law of thermodynamics). Entropy is a spread in the distribution of energy over quantum states (from a quantum standpoint) or phase space (from a classical standpoint) over time. In more basic terms, entropy is a measure of the "quality" of heat or available energy. It is essentially the thermodynamic principle that gives us equilibrium and states that systems tend to move toward equilibrium - i.e. a hot or cold object tends to reach the temperature of the environment it is in. (Note that while in general systems move toward equilibrium, it is still possible to move away from equilibrium at points within the system where there are energy gradients).

The only cosmological implication I can think of that results directly from the 2nd Law is the theory of the "heat death" of our universe - that once our universe reaches equilibrium it will be cold, dark and desolate (if there is not enough dark matter in the universe to halt its expansion and quantum fluctuations don't become large players, that is).

The theory goes that once the universe reaches maximum entropy that there will be no more free energy to sustain motion or life and the temperature of the universe would be around absolute zero. It is important to realize what "heat death" means here - we are talking about maximum entropy for a given state and temperature. It is very possible and indeed many theorize that before the universe began its current expansion that it was also at "heat death" - albeit at a different, state and temperature. We are not necessarily talking about temperature, but free energy - the amount of work that can be extracted from a system. If the system is at maximum entropy it is at equilibrium for that particular state by definition. Change the state (temperature, pressure, volume, etc) and you move away from equilibrium.

Now for some math and thermodynamics, brace yourselves:
Free energy is the amount of work that a system can do - you can think of it as the amount of useful energy in the system; energy that can cause motion, or heat things up. There are two kinds of free energy - Helmholtz and Gibbs.

Gibbs free energy is defined as:

G = H - TS

where G is the Gibb's energy, H is enthalpy*, T is temperature and S entropy.

Any natural process will occur spontaneously if and only if the associated change in G for the system is negative. This means that, a system reaches equilibrium when the associated change in G for the system is zero (ΔG = zero), and no spontaneous process will occur if the change in G is positive (ΔG > 0).

*-enthalpy is heat content.

Helmholtz free energy is defined as:

A = U-TS

where A is the Helmholtz energy, U is the internal energy of the system, T is the temperature and S is entropy.

The total work performed on a system at constant temperature in a reversible process is equal to the change in Helmholtz free energy.


Now, let's do some math.

(In the below <and>= will be greater than or equal too and less than or equal to. dX will be the partial derivative of the property X.)

The second law states that in a closed system, equilibrium is reached when entropy is maximized:

dS >= dQ/dT

Now, let's examine "heat death". Let's say for simplicity’s sake that prior to the universe expanding, it was at a constant temperature and volume.

A little algebra allows us to write the 2nd law as:

dQ - TdS = 0

One can combine the 1st and 2nd laws in a well known equation (I'll derive this if you are really interested, but it should be well known to people in engineering and physics fields):

dU = TdS - pdV

substituting in the Helmholtz equation:

dA = dQ - TdS - pdV - SdT

If the universe were at constant temperature and volume (say prior to the big bang) we get:

dA(T,V) = dQ - TdS <= 0

So at constant T and V the Helmholtz free energy will seek a minimum - this means that for a spontaneous process to occur the net change in free energy must be zero (equilibrium) or decrease (not yet at equilibrium). Alternatively, one could expand the system and reduce the temperature - and this is what we think happened and is happening now.

So now we have an expanding, cooling system. Similarly we can substitute the Gibb's equation and get:

dG(T,P) = dQ - TdS <=0

This means that as our universe cools and expands to a constant temperature the Gibbs energy seeks a minimum. For a spontaneous process to occur the change in Gibbs energy must be negative (if not yet at equilibrium) or zero (if at equilibrium).

In the two cases I've described - two states of the universe, there would be no free energy available to do work and the system would be essentially static.

That the universe will reach another state of heat death depends on whether or not there is enough dark matter-energy in the universe to halt its expansion. Why the universe began to expand in the first place is a bit of a mystery, but ample empirical evidence tells us that this expansion did indeed occur.
So no, “disorderly” helium and hydrogen didn’t form the stars, for these gases certainly aren’t what one could ever call disorderly from an entropic point of view. Helium and hydrogen did condense as the universe began to cool, and were coalesced into stars by gravitational forces between the molecules.

 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.