Conservation of energy

[The Tanager]

I don't know if this should go here, because I'm not making a religious point off of this here, but it could possibly clear up some confusion in another thread.

Which of these would you say is the law of conservation of energy? Or how would you tighten the law up more?

(1) Matter/energy/mass are eternal

(2) In a closed system, the total amount of mass/energy/matter is constant or conserved. That the system does not gain or lose any energy when transformations take place within it.

[Still small]

I think the argument re the universe has always existed in one form or another is not implying anything came from nothing, but rather that a full cycle event stemmed from the 'quantum potential' which at various points that could be described as the gap between the end of one cycle and the beginning of the next, this 'quantum potential' is physical in nature but has no other form other than it's 'quantumness'.

This is what is being referred to as 'nothing' rather than the absolute idea of 'no thing' - it is something but it is formless. It is one thing, rather than many different things, and it is - in that - potential and the idea is that this potential never stays static but forms into separate and related/connected things. (Emphasis added)

Maybe this is what is being described in the first three verses of the Bible -

Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. - (God being the ultimate Uncaused Cause being the ‘force’ behind it all.
Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. - ( Being the formless ‘quantum potential’ of which you speak, from the perspective of Earth.
Gen 1:3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. - (Being the phenomenon which we know as the Big Bang.)

Who would have thought! Here we have it all explained. The initial Uncaused Cause explaining why there is ‘something rather than ‘nothing’. A description of the physically formless void which existed ‘prior’ to the Big Bang. And the coming into existence of the universe we now see. We’ve had the answers there right before our eyes for centuries. Imagine that! 🤔 😳😉😉😉

Have a good day,
Still small

[Still small]

Simple, because an infinite universe does not involve the creation or destruction of energy/matter, nor does it involve a trend of decreasing or static entropy in any isolated system.

Unfortunately, the infinite universe, both in size and time, which you appear to be proposing/promoting still has some problems. As the observational evidence shows that the universe is expanding (and at an unpredicted accelerating rate). The universe must have been in a ‘smaller’, more compact state in the past. Therefore it must have been compacted to the singularity of the Big Bang or to some point prior to this size before rebounding or whatever. For the universe to be previously compacted, it must be bounded and therefore an isolated system, being subject to 2LoT.
If your claim is that the expansion of an infinite universe is just a reduction of density, then you still come across the problem of Olber’s paradox.

Have a good day!
Still small

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 278 by Still small]

The important thing to remember is no one knows. You don't know, I don't know, Hawking and Krauss don't know. No one knows.

What we DO know is that time and entropy and, well, pretty much everything else, stop making much sense as a singularity is approached. If even THAT'S what happened.

Are they good questions? Yes. Should folks get bent out of shape pretending their best guess is a better guess than someone else's best guess?

We THINK we know what likely happened AFTER the inflation epoch. Everything you're upset about regarding thermodynamics occurred before that, if it occurred at all, and is beyond our collective knowledge.

Everyone have some tea and listen to something pleasant on the FM band.

[Danmark]

I think it all works out in the end

This is a good summary of your argument in that it explains nothing.

If you believe it explains nothing, then I suggest you read it again or have someone explain it to you.

Despite being infinite in size our universe is cyclical and has always existed in one of four stages.... the universe did not start with the big bang, but there was a phase transition from one phase of the universe to another.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ ... ientists-d...
I have previously pointed out that Lawrence Krauss, even when he is arguing the universe 'came from nothing' points out it came from pre existing matter and energy. Instead of making mere claims, perhaps you could cite actual scientists who demonstrate the universe suddenly sprung into existence from absolute nothingness.

Oh my goodness, they’ve proved the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to be wrong.

The fact that you do not understand the laws of thermodynamics and/or completely misapply them does not assist your argument. You have given ZERO evidence to refute the fact the universe has always existed. That it has always been in no way refutes any physical law. The fact that the universe has always been is consistent with every physical law.

The fable that some 'god' created the universe from nothing, however, violates the very laws you have been quoting; i.e. "matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed." Since matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed we know that some imagined 'god' did not create matter from nothing. The only alternative is that the universe has always existed.

[William]

[Replying to post 279 by Still small]

I don't disagree with your connecting the dots in this way.

What I am suggesting is that if the theory in which the universe has always existed, is correct, then it wasn't created...because it (the 'quantum potential' as I referred to it) is the 'stuff' which form comes from...thus the forms are not eternal but the stuff which is the material used to create the forms, is.

This appears to be the 'universe has always existed' argument. That the universe is not the forms but the stuff the forms are made up of.

The idea that this can and does happen without any conscious creative input is not something I personally hold as the most likely truth of the matter.

However, nor do I make the assumption that because such is written in the bible, this amounts to the idea of the GOD of the bible being the overall creator. The idea that the universe was created by a 'GOD', is something humans thought about long before Judaism was created and subsequently borrowed such ideas as this, in its compilation of it's particular version of 'who and what' GOD is.

It is not actually all that hard to connect the dots so to speak, and understand that the forms of the universe are created, but as has been argued - relevantly - the order in which the biblical account of creation occurs is out of sync with the actual scientific data, so no points there.

I would counsel caution in simply assuming that just because the bible (or any other religious book) get things right on occasion, that this signifies that it is a book of truth throughout, and that the followers are therefore adhering to the truth.

[Bust Nak]

Unfortunately, the infinite universe, both in size and time, which you appear to be proposing/promoting still has some problems. As the observational evidence shows that the universe is expanding (and at an unpredicted accelerating rate). The universe must have been in a ‘smaller’, more compact state in the past.

That much is fine, however your earlier claim was that a Steady State universe contradicts 2LoT, are you ready to accept that there is no contradiction with a static universe and 2LoT first? You really should resolve this before moving on to another point re: Big Bang.

Therefore it must have been compacted to the singularity of the Big Bang or to some point prior to this size before rebounding or whatever. For the universe to be previously compacted, it must be bounded and therefore an isolated system, being subject to 2LoT.

Sure, subject to 2LoT is quite a different claim to contradicting with 2LoT.

If your claim is that the expansion of an infinite universe is just a reduction of density, then you still come across the problem of Olber’s paradox.

The solution to the "paradox" is right there in the article, under the subtitle "The final explanation."

[marco]

Hmmm . . . maybe I was going a bit to quick for you. Here’s a make-up lesson -

Moderator Comment

Or maybe you are being too quick to judge another poster. Your post is close to being uncivil in its condescension.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[William]

Simple, because an infinite universe does not involve the creation or destruction of energy/matter, nor does it involve a trend of decreasing or static entropy in any isolated system.

Unfortunately, the infinite universe, both in size and time, which you appear to be proposing/promoting still has some problems. As the observational evidence shows that the universe is expanding (and at an unpredicted accelerating rate). The universe must have been in a ‘smaller’, more compact state in the past. Therefore it must have been compacted to the singularity of the Big Bang or to some point prior to this size before rebounding or whatever. For the universe to be previously compacted, it must be bounded and therefore an isolated system, being subject to 2LoT.
If your claim is that the expansion of an infinite universe is just a reduction of density, then you still come across the problem of Olber’s paradox.

Have a good day!
Still small

Having read the article, I am left wondering as to what exactly people are meaning when they say 'the universe is infinite.'

Something which is expanding, or from the other perspective - something which is in a state of 'infinite' density are both - by definition - NOT infinite. I was under the impression the argument of an 'infinite universe' wasn't about the states it is in at any particular moment, but that it has always existed. Eternal/infinite. Without beginning and without end.

The 'beginnings' and 'ends' can still happen, but this cyclic flow of matter and energy has never had a beginning and will never end.

The article linked doesn't appear to speak to that concept.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 279 by Still small]

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. - (Being the phenomenon which we know as the Big Bang.)

The early universe was opaque and effectively dark. Stars did not form until some hundreds of million years after the Big Bang. It would appear that God waited all that time until light naturally began to be emitted from the earliest stars and tried to take credit for it. Or, the anonymous authors of that ancient text didn't have a clue about how their world started and made up a fanciful tale with a magical being that could do anything.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 286 by William]

William: Having read the article, I am left wondering as to what exactly people are meaning when they say 'the universe is infinite."

The ambiguity may arise because of the mathematical difference between an open and closed set. Thus, you may define a circle as open, meaning it contains all points within, but not containing the perimeter, or as closed, containing all points including the perimeter. In either case you are dealing with an infinite set.
Of course the universe is bounded by a "point", expanding from the "big bang", emitting Hawking radiation, or heat, that near the singularity is a rapid process, and contracting simultaneously into the "black hole", where matter(gravity), the contraction of space time, seems from the outside to slow clocks.
Think of a golf ball: It's dimples are gravitational wells emitting heat energy, but are also attracting matter. When the dimples deepen enough, they all reach the same singularity. Thus the universe is finite but unbounded save by the singularity which is not actually part of the field.