radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Long hard issue... let me cogitate on it fer awhile.
Radarmark
Radarmark
Ask a Spiritual Physicist
- Thread starter radarmark
- Start date
Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics
The universe did not grow out of nothing. Consciousness created it . Science can create things so what make someone think that a creator(s) didnt create the universe?
The universe did not grow out of nothing. Consciousness created it . Science can create things so what make someone think that a creator(s) didnt create the universe?
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Thermodynamics and chaos (kind sorta what drives bucking the trend). You are both right. The second law applies to closed macrosystems, which is physics-speak for large systems (like those you can see with your eyes or a telescope) which do not exchange energy or matter with anything outside of itself. From that you can well understand that the only real "closed system" is the whole Kosmos. But so little energy is lost from a room into the environment compaired to the cooling teacup in it, the room can be treated as if it were a closed system. Hence the famous case for entropy of a hot cup of tea cooling down. Ditto for the cup of tea as a closed system when one puts milk into it and the milk disperses.
If one rapidly expand the space around some large bodies at equibrium (say a bunch of hydrogen particles right after the big bang or a mixed slurry of particles in a vat of water) by either passing a faster bigger body nearby or quickly pulling the slurry bucket under the surface of the water, you get condensate. That is, the equi-energetic atoms or paricles clump together because the structured groups of identical particles have less energy than the individual particles in the larger (kinda) closed system. (This is the example that is just hard to explain... if you need it I can send you plenty of experimental results). This "seeding" is what initially begins a galaxy or a snowflake, which takes off from there as other forces (like gravitational attraction or larger temperature diferences) take over too fuel the process.
Some really remarkable physics (see Zurek or Prigogone) deal with the second law. Most references to "far-from-equilibrim" or "self-organization" or "emergent properties" in the last 15 years of physics deals with this trade off.
"Life, gravity and the second law of thermodynamics" by Lineweaver and Egan or Jaeger & Liu's "Far-From-Equilibrium Physics: An Overview" are well written papers available on the net, that youy can understand even if you have to skip the math.
As the Kosmos gets older, both the second law and the fact that it is expanding cools everything off to a heat death (the ultimate end of entropic disorder). However, matter, energy and information in open systems (where "stuff" can be exchanged, like water exchanged into and out of a whorlpool) behave differently, they can become "self organizing". And believe it or not both chaos theory and quantum theory can help explain this "bucking the trend". Also "other forces" like gravity or electro-weak or the strong force take over from the initial "kernal" or "seed" and can power up the system.
If that is not enough detail, please get back with me and we can go over things one at a time. Glace at the references and we can continue this, thanks!
It's kinds like the yin of self-organizing whirls around with the yang of increasing entropy.
Pax at amore vincunt omnia--Radarmark
If one rapidly expand the space around some large bodies at equibrium (say a bunch of hydrogen particles right after the big bang or a mixed slurry of particles in a vat of water) by either passing a faster bigger body nearby or quickly pulling the slurry bucket under the surface of the water, you get condensate. That is, the equi-energetic atoms or paricles clump together because the structured groups of identical particles have less energy than the individual particles in the larger (kinda) closed system. (This is the example that is just hard to explain... if you need it I can send you plenty of experimental results). This "seeding" is what initially begins a galaxy or a snowflake, which takes off from there as other forces (like gravitational attraction or larger temperature diferences) take over too fuel the process.
Some really remarkable physics (see Zurek or Prigogone) deal with the second law. Most references to "far-from-equilibrim" or "self-organization" or "emergent properties" in the last 15 years of physics deals with this trade off.
"Life, gravity and the second law of thermodynamics" by Lineweaver and Egan or Jaeger & Liu's "Far-From-Equilibrium Physics: An Overview" are well written papers available on the net, that youy can understand even if you have to skip the math.
As the Kosmos gets older, both the second law and the fact that it is expanding cools everything off to a heat death (the ultimate end of entropic disorder). However, matter, energy and information in open systems (where "stuff" can be exchanged, like water exchanged into and out of a whorlpool) behave differently, they can become "self organizing". And believe it or not both chaos theory and quantum theory can help explain this "bucking the trend". Also "other forces" like gravity or electro-weak or the strong force take over from the initial "kernal" or "seed" and can power up the system.
If that is not enough detail, please get back with me and we can go over things one at a time. Glace at the references and we can continue this, thanks!
It's kinds like the yin of self-organizing whirls around with the yang of increasing entropy.
Pax at amore vincunt omnia--Radarmark
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
All I claim is that science (physics and math) cannot tell you one way or the other what came before the Kosmos. Matter, energy, time, and space did not exist--that is pretty much a pretty good befinition of "nothingness" last time I checked.
So put me in Augustine's corner "creatio ex nihilo" works for me. If one is talking about "what is out there": external matter, energy and information (all of which together I call the Kosmos).
Now deep inside I beleive meta-physically that creativity itself (Hartshorne made this Whiteheadean term into the G!d of Process Theology) split somehow, someway to bring the Kosmos into emergence (now that I read that it is closer to Kabbalah than Process Philosophy). I do not know how, am pretty certain I (and anyone else) can never know how, and do not care how. But experiencing the results and (for me) the possibilities (read that weaving meta-physical myths of creation) makes it all okay.
Peace Unto Three, radarmark
So put me in Augustine's corner "creatio ex nihilo" works for me. If one is talking about "what is out there": external matter, energy and information (all of which together I call the Kosmos).
Now deep inside I beleive meta-physically that creativity itself (Hartshorne made this Whiteheadean term into the G!d of Process Theology) split somehow, someway to bring the Kosmos into emergence (now that I read that it is closer to Kabbalah than Process Philosophy). I do not know how, am pretty certain I (and anyone else) can never know how, and do not care how. But experiencing the results and (for me) the possibilities (read that weaving meta-physical myths of creation) makes it all okay.
Peace Unto Three, radarmark
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
What is the space created from that keeps the universe expanding?
If time is a function of motion, then wouldn't that mean it is also a property of space?
If time is a function of motion, then wouldn't that mean it is also a property of space?
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
The space and time exist now (in the Kosmos). Neither (per Relativity Theory) existed before the Big Bang (if it happened).
Elsewhere I pointed out talking about "that which was before the Big Bang" is kind hard because there was absolutely nothing (from a scientific point of view).
Does that answer the question?
Elsewhere I pointed out talking about "that which was before the Big Bang" is kind hard because there was absolutely nothing (from a scientific point of view).
Does that answer the question?
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Space is being created here in the universe now. (Red shift from astronomical observations.) What's it being created from? Does it just expand to fit the energy contained within it?
Is expansion/creation of space the universe's way of keeping time?
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
My intial response was given under the assuption you were looking at the previous entry.
Okay, space. Blow up a balloon. The surface getsbigger and would in an absolute vacuum (nothing there). The universe is much like that. It's separate chunk drift apart creating more space in it. That is a really rough approximation. Check out Chapter 27 of The Road to Reality by Penrose (available at library and if the math fummoxes you I can recommend some easier refs).
It doesn't really expand to contain the energy (mass and energy remain, it seems pretty constant). Rather, the text book reason is "the universe is expanding because of the big bang". See, at the moment of creation the only force was the strong nuclear force which is really very repulsive. BOOM! That force acting on the singularity (some infinatesimally (sp?) small volumen the entire universe was in) makes it expand. Oh, yes there are some "fine details" beyond that story, but it is close enough.
Time... that's a really big one. I have read or have on my shelf nearly every academic text or "serious" popular book in it (look up Hitoshi Kitada on Google Scholar, we keep in correspondence).
If the universe's expansion and the gravitational constant stay constant, I'd say you are pretty close to what a "cosmological time" would be. Problem is you have all of these conflicting "times" within it. I like "time is the universe's way of making sure everything doesn't happen at once". Time is always a meta-physical question. Even Hitoshi's work (which may be the best single scientific analysis I know of) leads one down the road to "dang, what the question again?"
Peace and love will conquer all -- Radarmark
Okay, space. Blow up a balloon. The surface getsbigger and would in an absolute vacuum (nothing there). The universe is much like that. It's separate chunk drift apart creating more space in it. That is a really rough approximation. Check out Chapter 27 of The Road to Reality by Penrose (available at library and if the math fummoxes you I can recommend some easier refs).
It doesn't really expand to contain the energy (mass and energy remain, it seems pretty constant). Rather, the text book reason is "the universe is expanding because of the big bang". See, at the moment of creation the only force was the strong nuclear force which is really very repulsive. BOOM! That force acting on the singularity (some infinatesimally (sp?) small volumen the entire universe was in) makes it expand. Oh, yes there are some "fine details" beyond that story, but it is close enough.
Time... that's a really big one. I have read or have on my shelf nearly every academic text or "serious" popular book in it (look up Hitoshi Kitada on Google Scholar, we keep in correspondence).
If the universe's expansion and the gravitational constant stay constant, I'd say you are pretty close to what a "cosmological time" would be. Problem is you have all of these conflicting "times" within it. I like "time is the universe's way of making sure everything doesn't happen at once". Time is always a meta-physical question. Even Hitoshi's work (which may be the best single scientific analysis I know of) leads one down the road to "dang, what the question again?"
Peace and love will conquer all -- Radarmark
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
OK, this is starting to get interesting. The strong nuclear force is behind the creation of space? Interesting how it is also related to gravity in that is the primary force behind mass. Is that why gravity is so weak? It is diluted by space by the strong nuclear force? hmm
Cosmological time--some sort of mechanism to be sure causality is not violated?
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
I'd like to throw another wrinkle into the time question. According to my belief system, there have been many universes and this present universe is only one in that long line. It is also said there is no such thing as time between universes. But it is also said that there is a set amount of "time" between universes. It is a fascinating paradox that there is a "non-time" which exists between the "time" of each universe.
Gatekeeper
Shades of Reason
Nothing in that it is not is measurable by scientific means? How does one go back in time and develop such a theory, that nothingness was prior to the formation of the universe? I am extremely curious about this. Is this theory based on prior theories, or is it a rock solid fact? Maybe I'm thick, but if no thing existed, then how did some thing form?
I dont believe in the nothingness. I believe each planet was like an unfertilized egg and fertilization was creation.
chakraman
God save us from religion
- Messages
- 282
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
my guess is that it inflowed from a "higher" dimension, perhaps know as the astral?, where the energy already existed as "something" and perhaps when this physical realm/dimension as we know it, is perfected then it might create out of it's "something" another dimension and so on. in the book occult chemistry, the description of atoms etc seemed to describe energy flowing "in" one end of a double helix and "out" of another, from where and to where? the astral is my guess or some similar notion. but then what is the astral?? difficult for a brain caught in time and space to understand something that is not either of those, hence the laws of physics breaking down in such a place as they only attempt to explain physical space.
this does not happen by way of an explosion or bang i feel; something coming from nothing that is
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
SG "Cosmological time--some sort of mechanism to be sure causality is not violated?" Can I quote you? I like it, Kintada and Whitehead make the same point, but with a lot more words.
Gatekeeper, time and space not existing before Creation is a by-product of Relativity theory. The metric (three dimensions we associate with space and time, kinda) is a result of the mass and energy occupying it. In turn the metric causes gravitation.
How space and time occur is debatable. Einstein believed in a "block universe" where everything just exists (like water in an aquarium). Most relativists follow him. Most quantum physicists consider time to flow (as we experience).
But they all pretty much agree that the math precludes anything in the time before creation. However, at the meta-physical level the majority think something else exists, we just don't know what.
Chakraman has as good an explanation as most.
Pax et amore vincumt omnia Radarmark
Gatekeeper, time and space not existing before Creation is a by-product of Relativity theory. The metric (three dimensions we associate with space and time, kinda) is a result of the mass and energy occupying it. In turn the metric causes gravitation.
How space and time occur is debatable. Einstein believed in a "block universe" where everything just exists (like water in an aquarium). Most relativists follow him. Most quantum physicists consider time to flow (as we experience).
But they all pretty much agree that the math precludes anything in the time before creation. However, at the meta-physical level the majority think something else exists, we just don't know what.
Chakraman has as good an explanation as most.
Pax et amore vincumt omnia Radarmark
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
lol, sure.
Is there anything in the universe that is not in motion? Why would time be any different?
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
It's kinda like this. Einstein was the last alchemist. He just could not live with a G!d that played dice. Nor could he reconcile freewill with determinism. So he created one of two wierdest (to me) modern metaphysics: the block universe (the other wierd one to me is the many-worlds interpretation of quantum).
See "3D/4D Controversy" in "Time" entry of Stanford enclyclopedia of philosophy or Eternalism at Wikipedia for a detailed intoduction to this hard, hard topic. The two best academic sources for an explanation of Block Time are: Petkov (2005) "Is There an Alternative to the Block Universe View?" and " Block time: Why many physicists still don’t accept it?" by Hrvoje.
What it amounts to is the literal interpretation of the four dimensions of the Minkowski Metric (what Einstein used in Relativity): since i*c*t (the square root of minus 1 times the speed of light time the time) yields "something" with the dimension of "meter" or "foot" or someother measure of distance. So time, like space must be eternally existent.
The problem is that this conflicts with quantum theory (my speciality) and is "super-deterministic" (kinda in the way Lunitik sees things). My main problem is that it postulates a very complex explanation whereas the "common sense" experiantial approach of time flowing is simpler. Ditto with many-worlds, while possible, it just pales in complexity when compared to the indeterministic interpretation.
So by ockham's rule, I chose the simpler, if less elegant, solution of flowing time in which chaos and quantum really are indeterminable. That is also why I feel an omniscient and omnipotent anthropometric G!d is something quite unjustifiable.
Make sense SG? How about for the reat of you?
By the way, sharp call.... in a Block Universe nothing is in motion.
Pax et amore vincunt omnia... radarmark
See "3D/4D Controversy" in "Time" entry of Stanford enclyclopedia of philosophy or Eternalism at Wikipedia for a detailed intoduction to this hard, hard topic. The two best academic sources for an explanation of Block Time are: Petkov (2005) "Is There an Alternative to the Block Universe View?" and " Block time: Why many physicists still don’t accept it?" by Hrvoje.
What it amounts to is the literal interpretation of the four dimensions of the Minkowski Metric (what Einstein used in Relativity): since i*c*t (the square root of minus 1 times the speed of light time the time) yields "something" with the dimension of "meter" or "foot" or someother measure of distance. So time, like space must be eternally existent.
The problem is that this conflicts with quantum theory (my speciality) and is "super-deterministic" (kinda in the way Lunitik sees things). My main problem is that it postulates a very complex explanation whereas the "common sense" experiantial approach of time flowing is simpler. Ditto with many-worlds, while possible, it just pales in complexity when compared to the indeterministic interpretation.
So by ockham's rule, I chose the simpler, if less elegant, solution of flowing time in which chaos and quantum really are indeterminable. That is also why I feel an omniscient and omnipotent anthropometric G!d is something quite unjustifiable.
Make sense SG? How about for the reat of you?
By the way, sharp call.... in a Block Universe nothing is in motion.
Pax et amore vincunt omnia... radarmark
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
lol, they are trying to equate the block universe with dharmahatu? Dharmahatu is about "emptiness," hence possibilities.
Sounds like they are trying to build the timely analogous {pun intended!}model to Ptolemy's Planetary Hypotheses.
or time is a property of space
Have you ever noticed how the etymology for intelligence comes from inter- "between" + legere "choose, pick out, read" i.e. "select"? So, would removing "selection" be equivilent to "dumbing down?"
Empirical evidence usually trumps theory. Oh, elegance is simplicity--with many possibilities.
How about omni-intelligent? Much more elegant, and wonderous.
Yeah, thanks. I think I've got a basic handle on it. I'm quite skeptical about the whole block universe thing, from my (limited) understanding of it.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Be skeptical of it (and of everything else that says it is scientific).
Safer that way.
Safer that way.
Kinda reminds me of the two arteries associated with the brain. Flows of energy in and out. What about the combinations of energy based on attraction of opposite energy? That is the flow of life.
I also believe the egg part came from GODS female counterpart and the fertilization part to form planets ect came from the male. Once this fertilization occured then meiosis started. It reminds me of the space movie where the guy says Its full of stars and at the end of the movie the monoliths produce the life. I see this as creation. When and egg is fertilized cells start to divide ect I see this as the monoliths reproducing and then it created the planet. Makes perfect sense to me that creation is always patterned after conception.