Why would God be interested in free lunches?

[QED]

Most of us are familiar with the saying "there's no such thing as a free lunch" and physics backs this up with the notion of conserved properties. The best known of these is probably energy which most schoolkids will tell us "can neither be created nor destroyed". Other example of conserved properties are electric charge and angular momentum. This jives with the idea of a provident God -- only he who has the power to break these universal rules and inject energy, charge and momentum into the unfolding universe. And what a lot of this we might imagine there to be!

But actually there isn't. All these laws of conservation hold within the universe, however they do not apply to the universe as a whole. The total mass-energy has a net sum indistinguishable from zero (when the negative contribution of gravitational potential energy is accounted for) and any imbalance in the numbers of electrons and protons would have a dramatic affect on structures of cosmic scale as the electric force is so much stronger than the force of gravity holding these structures together. If there was any net angular momentum to the universe then it would have shown as an increase in the microwave background radiation in the direction of its rotation axis. This radiation has now been measured to be the same in every direction to on part in a hundred thousand.

So why would a God with unlimited powers be so frugal? It's as though he's been down to the charity shop and blagged himself a universe for nothing. Perhaps it's the greatest testament to his ingenuity, but perhaps it's telling us something about the reason why we see the appearance of so much stuff when, with the proper accounting, it all sums to zero.

[QED]

AB I started this thread titled "Why would God be interested in free lunches?" precisely because the detailed physics of our universe are starting to tell us that, for all it's apparent bulk, when we look at the "bill of materials" nothing actually needed to be "paid for". Creation seems to be more like a feat of clever accountancy rather than a generous handout. Unfortunately to appreciate this means getting acquainted with the unfamiliar and often counter-intuitive realm of the Quantum world.

You're right that science hasn't proved that God does not exist so why not be content to listen in on what science does have to say?

[Grumpy]

QED

Creation seems to be more like a feat of clever accountancy rather than a generous handout. Unfortunately to appreciate this means getting acquainted with the unfamiliar and often counter-intuitive realm of the Quantum world.

The universe turns out to be simply the largest (in terms of energy) Quantum fluctuation we know about.

AB

The simple truth is we are here because of the many different types and sizes of the valence bonds of the carbon atom+the various properties of the other chemicals(oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen ect.). These chemicals exist because the universe is such that stars could form. That is the whole story.

Any other questions???

Grumpy

[George S]

QED

Creation seems to be more like a feat of clever accountancy rather than a generous handout. Unfortunately to appreciate this means getting acquainted with the unfamiliar and often counter-intuitive realm of the Quantum world.

The universe turns out to be simply the largest (in terms of energy) Quantum fluctuation we know about.

AB

The simple truth is we are here because of the many different types and sizes of the valence bonds of the carbon atom+the various properties of the other chemicals(oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen ect.). These chemicals exist because the universe is such that stars could form. That is the whole story.

Any other questions???

Grumpy

That Quantum Fluctuation answers the Question: Why is there something rather than nothing at all? Because nothingness is unstable.

[AB]

That is the whole story? I don't think so. Maybe those are the things that happened before the world became as we know it. But, it still doesn't' explain the author. So, you think these environments for the earth to happen "just happened"? For me, that is too flimsy. So, definitely the whole story isn't told.

QED

Creation seems to be more like a feat of clever accountancy rather than a generous handout. Unfortunately to appreciate this means getting acquainted with the unfamiliar and often counter-intuitive realm of the Quantum world.

The universe turns out to be simply the largest (in terms of energy) Quantum fluctuation we know about.

AB

The simple truth is we are here because of the many different types and sizes of the valence bonds of the carbon atom+the various properties of the other chemicals(oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen ect.). These chemicals exist because the universe is such that stars could form. That is the whole story.

Any other questions???

Grumpy

[Wyvern]

That is the whole story? I don't think so. Maybe those are the things that happened before the world became as we know it. But, it still doesn't' explain the author. So, you think these environments for the earth to happen "just happened"? For me, that is too flimsy. So, definitely the whole story isn't told.

You assume that an author is needed. In fact you assume that a story is being told in the first place. There is noone telling this supposed story nor is there a plot for your tale. There is no author for Beowulf and yet the tale exists after thousands of years. Many things just happen it is this problem that I think the main difficulties people have with evolution, people WANT there to be a purpose even when one does not exist.

[achilles12604]

Please forgive someone who is both ignorant on this subject, and to tired to read 22 pages of posts.


Humor me for one second.

Both sides have written something like this.

It seems to me that the conservation laws do apply to the universe as a whole. That is, the total amount of positive and negative energy should equal to approximately zero.

OK. Now I am REAAAAAALLLLLY far from being an expert, but I thought that if positivly and negatively charged masses were to mix, then you would have a greater mass which was neutral.

In other words, why would all the mass and energy in the universe equal zero just because all the charge in the universe would cancel to zero. I understand that Mass and energy are interchangable. However, neither of these are equal to charge. Charge is caused by the numbers of electrons, protons and neutrons. If all charge in the universe will equal zero, this does not really mean that all the electrons and protons and neutrons disappear, they simply balance out to zero charge.





Am I way off here?

[QED]

That is the whole story? I don't think so. Maybe those are the things that happened before the world became as we know it. But, it still doesn't' explain the author. So, you think these environments for the earth to happen "just happened"? For me, that is too flimsy. So, definitely the whole story isn't told.

You assume that an author is needed. In fact you assume that a story is being told in the first place. There is noone telling this supposed story nor is there a plot for your tale. There is no author for Beowulf and yet the tale exists after thousands of years. Many things just happen it is this problem that I think the main difficulties people have with evolution, people WANT there to be a purpose even when one does not exist.

Another good example of this is the Global Economy. No overall controller supervises the way this evolves. It is the collective action of each individual trade connected to all others by the network of commerce. The system is far too complex to be brought under stable control by a central planning authority.

[QED]

In other words, why would all the mass and energy in the universe equal zero just because all the charge in the universe would cancel to zero.

No, it's not a mix of mass and charge that cancels. These things are conserved separately. Putting it in the simplest way I can, no net imbalance of charge exists such that the universe is neutral as a whole and its total mass/energy is counteracted by the potential stress (negative) contribution of its gravitational effect. A way to understand the latter might be to consider the mass of a "jack-in-the-box" toy*. This is increased (ever so slightly!) when the spring is compressed and confined within the box! Here the energy stored in the spring contributes to the total mass as per Einstein's equation. The opposite of this situation, stretching the spring, likewise decreases the total mass. Gravity creates an analogous stress on all the mass in the universe.

*I can't recall exactly where I got this example from... It might have been J.D.Barrow.

[achilles12604]

In other words, why would all the mass and energy in the universe equal zero just because all the charge in the universe would cancel to zero.

No, it's not a mix of mass and charge that cancels. These things are conserved separately. Putting it in the simplest way I can, no net imbalance of charge exists such that the universe is neutral as a whole and its total mass/energy is counteracted by the potential stress (negative) contribution of its gravitational effect. A way to understand the latter might be to consider the mass of a "jack-in-the-box" toy*. This is increased (ever so slightly!) when the spring is compressed and confined within the box! Here the energy stored in the spring contributes to the total mass as per Einstein's equation. The opposite of this situation, stretching the spring, likewise decreases the total mass. Gravity creates an analogous stress on all the mass in the universe.

*I can't recall exactly where I got this example from... It might have been J.D.Barrow.

Ok I think I understand what you are saying.

Premise 1) Charge and energy are not the same thing.

Premise 2) Charge can equal out to neutral for the whole universe.


I agree that chrage can equal out to neutral. This has no effect on mass/energy conservation.

I wrote :

If all charge in the universe will equal zero, this does not really mean that all the electrons and protons and neutrons disappear, they simply balance out to zero charge.

You wrote :

Putting it in the simplest way I can, no net imbalance of charge exists such that the universe is neutral as a whole

I think we agree that Charge can equal out to a totally neutral state.

Therefore, mass/energy is where we differ.

You wrote :

its total mass/energy is counteracted by the potential stress (negative) contribution of its gravitational effect.

Your explaination for this was this analogy. . .

A way to understand the latter might be to consider the mass of a "jack-in-the-box" toy*. This is increased (ever so slightly!) when the spring is compressed and confined within the box! Here the energy stored in the spring contributes to the total mass as per Einstein's equation. The opposite of this situation, stretching the spring, likewise decreases the total mass. Gravity creates an analogous stress on all the mass in the universe.

Lets set a few standards by which to understand each other better.

For simplicity lets refer to everything within the system in terms of energy. Since energy is equal to mass, this is within the laws of physics. E = MC2

Lets use the following symbols for simplicity.

Energy of the Jack in the box system before being compressed (resting) = R(e)

Energy of the jack in the box system after being compressed (compressed) = C(e)


What you basically stated, unless I misunderstood, is that

R(e) < C(e).

Your explaination for this increase in energy was the increase in potential energy due to compression.

However, you are forgetting a factor. The energy increase between compressed and resting was not "created" but rather was added from outside this system. The jack in the box did not compress on its own. Force (Mass * acceleration) F(e) was applied on the Jack to compress it thereby increasing the total amount of energy within the system. Therefore the correct equation should look like :

C(e) = R(e) + F(e)

Since the energy to compress the spring came from outside the system, the system must expand to include it. This new closed system's energy is conserved, not created.

The opposite is also true.

When the spring is sprung, the energy given off by this action, is not lost or destroied. It is simply converted into something else, in this case acceleration of the jack's head, the deceleration of the jack's head, the sound waves created by this event, and possibly even the tippin over of the jack if enough energy is released.

So you see in either case the energy is conseverd and the forces applied to the system either add or subtract energy from that system, but energy is neither created nor destroyed.



The bottom line is that while it is true that the overall mass of the Jack in the box is greater after being compressed, this increase in mass is not due to the creation of mass, but rather outside energy being added to the system.


I understand that there is no perfect analogy for something so complex. So lets now look at gravitiational forces.


Gravity is a force. This force can be used to move masses. I am not sure however, that the universal system as a whole, is effected by this.
The reason for this is that gravitational force is dependent on distance and size of the mass. When a planet moves further from another planet the gravitational pull between those planets is less. Now if this same planet moved closer to another planet, that graviational force would be greater. Therefore, the net force is conserved within the total system of the universe.

Even the potential energy created by the gravitational forces, evens out does it not?

[AB]

That is the whole story? I don't think so. Maybe those are the things that happened before the world became as we know it. But, it still doesn't' explain the author. So, you think these environments for the earth to happen "just happened"? For me, that is too flimsy. So, definitely the whole story isn't told.

You assume that an author is needed. In fact you assume that a story is being told in the first place. There is noone telling this supposed story nor is there a plot for your tale. There is no author for Beowulf and yet the tale exists after thousands of years. Many things just happen it is this problem that I think the main difficulties people have with evolution, people WANT there to be a purpose even when one does not exist.

Another good example of this is the Global Economy. No overall controller supervises the way this evolves. It is the collective action of each individual trade connected to all others by the network of commerce. The system is far too complex to be brought under stable control by a central planning authority.

Science: projects backwards to answer the begining. Sceience still has completed the study. Or has sceince proven how nothing happend out of nothing? Don't think so. Sceince is good. All I think it is doing is finding and recording more details about God's great creation. And sorry, this world, universe, and us as humans, etc is far too complex to "just happen" without a ultimate creater behind it... refering back to your Ecomomy algorithm. I don't buy it.