second law of thermodynamics (its an easy one)

gf · Post by gf » Sat Mar 12, 2005 6:19 pm

Hello.

I spoke to a Creationist, whom stated that the second law of thermodynamics, goes against Evolution. As the Universe decays.

Now, it dawned on me, that this is not a rare event, as most Creationist proclaim this, not at least, a certain Mr Kent Hovind. So i thought we could have a discussion about this.

The second law of thermodynamics does not claim that everything is "winding down" / decays / crumbles / or similar. What it does state is that you get entropy, and it seems that this is where we get a problem. Either most people do not know what this means, or they dont want to know what it means.

To claim that entropy equals decay, is to go from Physics to Opinion.

And this is the important part of it.
The second law of thermodynamics only states, that entropy occurs in different stages.

And this is it. If you claim, state or otherwise say in any way that it "decays", or "improves", you go from Physics, to your own opinion.

So it does not go against Evolution, it rather enhances evolution, as Evolution also, does not mean improve, but means change.

Opinion anyone ?

Perhaps you need some background information about this, but this is more or less the main thing that most Creationist seems to be confused about.

ST88 · Post by **ST88** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:58 am

otseng wrote:ST88 brought this up and I thought it was an interesting statement.
ST88 wrote: At the moment before the Big Bang and even a very short while afterwards, there were no physical laws as we know them. In essence, there was no time, no space, no thermodynamics, nothing. As a logical exercise, we can say that if there were no laws, then there were no laws that could be violated.
However, if there were no laws, how could anything happen?

Or to put it another way, if there were no laws, why didn't everything happen?

otseng wrote:And if there were a totally different set of laws operating before the Big Bang (or even afterwards), how did those laws change?

Ye Gods. Pre-Big Bang scenarios are highly speculative at best. There is still the ex-nihilo theory, but now we have quantum fluctuation theory and something called Brane Theory, which has to do with an 11-dimensional "multiverse" where universes like ours pop up all the time. There is one part of string theory (M-Theory) that hypothesizes that Our Big Bang was caused by a collision with a different universe. In each case, there is very little evidence. So I'm afraid your question isn't answerable at this time.

LillSnopp · Post by **LillSnopp** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 6:35 pm

Personally, i guess that i would be attacked by any Creationist and accused for being an Evolutionist, which for some reason means everything from Big Bang to Slime Becoming Grandpa.

I am highly sceptical to the Big Bang Theory. Especially considering we have not even left our own Galaxy, but can say how the "world" came to be.

So dont include me in the Big Bang bunch. I would rather prefer putting up several different theories, and end it with, "But we dont know, and most likely, never able to find out".

LillSnopp

Chem · Post by **Chem** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:46 am

As far as we can tell, no energy or matter is entering or leaving our universe, therefore it is a closed system.

It depends on which cosmological model you work with as there are some models that suggest that blackholes connect to other universes. Each choice that we make, our other selves in the multiverse mkes a different choice. Then again it could be an observer universe in which case I'm the only one who exists.......

Post by **otseng** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:25 pm

I'm starting to lose track of all the threads I've participated in, so I forgot all about this thread. (And I'm sure there are many other threads that I've forgotten about also.)

ST88 wrote: Or to put it another way, if there were no laws, why didn't everything happen?

I assume you say this tongue in cheek.

LillSnopp wrote: I am highly sceptical to the Big Bang Theory. Especially considering we have not even left our own Galaxy, but can say how the "world" came to be.

We can understand the Big Bang theory because of our observations. And that is all we can go by. So, based on our current observations, the Big Bang theory is the most commonly accepted theory to the origin of our universe.

But even if don't subscribe to the Big Bang theory, according to the laws of thermo, there must've been a beginning to the universe.

Chem wrote: It depends on which cosmological model you work with as there are some models that suggest that blackholes connect to other universes. Each choice that we make, our other selves in the multiverse mkes a different choice. Then again it could be an observer universe in which case I'm the only one who exists.......

What evidence suggests that we are "linked" to other universes? And even if it was true that black holes connect to other universes, it still does not address the issue of entropy.

Gollum · Post by **Gollum** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 7:35 pm

What evidence suggests that we are "linked" to other universes? And even if it was true that black holes connect to other universes, it still does not address the issue of entropy.

As far as I'm aware, there's no "evidence" that black holes link to other universes. The speculation arises from some rather abtruse mathematics in the General Theory of Relativity that allows the possibility that a sufficiently strong gravitational field can "tunnel" out of the normal 4-dimensional space-time continum. That it tunnels to another universe is just the speculation.

As to entropy ...

The second law does imply that, if the universe had existed for an infinite time then we should be at maximum entropy (aka heat death) and nothing including us would exist. So yes ... the universe must have had a beginning.

The other observation (i.e. that the universe is a closed system and entropy must increase in a closed system) is also completely true. The second law however does not require that entropy must increase everywhere inside a closed system. It only requires that the net change in entropy is an increase. There's no violation of the second law if a decrease of entropy in one part of the system is offset by an increase of greater magnitude elsewhere in the system.

LillSnopp · Post by **LillSnopp** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 7:41 pm

But even if don't subscribe to the Big Bang theory, according to the laws of thermo, there must've been a beginning to the universe.

Tell me, do you think there must been a beginning?

Post by **otseng** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 8:20 pm

LillSnopp wrote: Tell me, do you think there must been a beginning?

Of course. Not only do I believe there was a beginning, I believe a supernatural entity must've created it. I've explained this in an earlier post in this thread.

Gollum · Post by **Gollum** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:30 pm

Not only do I believe there was a beginning, I believe a supernatural entity must've created it. I've explained this in an earlier post in this thread.

Can't argue with that. Both science and theology generally agree that the universe had a starting point and science is certainly not in a position to state that it can describe in any detail the nature of events "in the beginning". My reading on the subject indicates that science can trace back the events to a point some 10^-43 seconds after the initial event (which for convenience we'll call the big bang.) Earlier than that, the prevailing theories suggest that the "laws of nature" as we know them did not apply. What laws if any did apply has been speculated about as part of theories like brane theory. (No. Don't ask me to explain it. Something about 11 dimensions.)

Osteng's belief in a supernatural creator has at least as much factual backing as anything else ... but unfortunately ... that's none at all.

Post by **otseng** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:09 pm

Gollum wrote:Osteng's belief in a supernatural creator has at least as much factual backing as anything else ... but unfortunately ... that's none at all.

No, my argument follows a logical progression leading to rational conclusion. The factual backing is the laws of thermo. And the only way to refute my argument is to somehow negate the laws of thermo.

However, I would agree that alternative explanations have no factual backing to them.

LillSnopp · Post by **LillSnopp** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 4:09 am

No, my argument follows a logical progression leading to rational conclusion. The factual backing is the laws of thermo. And the only way to refute my argument is to somehow negate the laws of thermo.

However, I would agree that alternative explanations have no factual backing to them

I still wish to post the possibility of a constant Universe. We are merely humans, just because things cease to exist for us, does not really mean anything. We hardly been around at all (6000 years according to Creationists).

To give the laws of thermo absolute power lock ourself for other possibilities is no good. non?