| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Uno Lapideus" |
| Date: |
20 Apr 2006 01:26:35 AM |
| Object: |
Cosmology Theory Question |
Since the "big bang" and the "steady state" theories both violate the
Second Law of Thermodynamics (BB in a big way, once (everything created
in a once-off event some 15 BYA); SS in infinitely many small ways (one
H atom created per cubic meter of space per 30 000 years, forever
ongoing)), these theory "families" must both be wrong -- ergo,
something else must be going on, of which we all are a part. Does
anyone in this group know of any cosmological theory that does *not*
violate the SLoT? If yes, please provide links references, or whatever
may be available!
TIA, Uno
.
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology Theory Question |
20 Apr 2006 02:33:59 PM |
|
|
"Uno Lapideus" <henry@microtechnonstop.com> wrote in message
news:1145514395.235548.162940@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Since the "big bang" and the "steady state" theories both violate the
Second Law of Thermodynamics (BB in a big way, once (everything
created in a once-off event some 15 BYA) ...
Not true. In BBT, the laws of physics are consistent with
all local observations.
[Old Man]
TIA, Uno
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uno Lapideus" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology Theory Question |
24 Apr 2006 01:11:08 AM |
|
|
Old Man wrote: "In BBT, the laws of physics are consistent with all
local observations"
Really? Who was the observer that recorded the hypothetical "local
event" called "the big bang"? Are you telling me that everything was
created out of nothing, and still not violating the Second Law of
Thermodynamics?
Or are you simply referring to the fact that, since the Second Law has
not been confirmed with absolute certainty, the BB event did not
violate it? I'd call that semantics...
If these are indeed new experimentally observed findings, could you
please provide references/links to where I can learn about this amazing
stuff?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology Theory Question |
24 Apr 2006 01:21:04 AM |
|
|
In article <1145859067.986068.34500@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Uno Lapideus" <henry@microtechnonstop.com> writes:
Old Man wrote: "In BBT, the laws of physics are consistent with all
local observations"
Really? Who was the observer that recorded the hypothetical "local
event" called "the big bang"? Are you telling me that everything was
created out of nothing, and still not violating the Second Law of
Thermodynamics?
The laws of physics are in effect for the universe, at the time it
exists. Your assumptions that these law have some sort of eternal
validity, even priorto the time the universe existed (if, in fact,
said "prior" even has a meaning) is just this, an assumption, and one
not based on anything solid. The Big Bang constitutes a singularity.
We can, meaningfully, talk about the laws of physics governing the
evolution of the universe *since* the Big Bang. We cannot,
meaningfully, talk about the laws of physics governing the Big Bang.
Or are you simply referring to the fact that, since the Second Law has
not been confirmed with absolute certainty
No physical law has been confirmed with absolute certainty and none
will ever be. The invocation of the phrase "absolute certainty" in
connection to physics, hints at the presence of a crank or an
ignoramus. But that's a side issue, in comparison to the above.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uno Lapideus" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology Theory Question |
27 Apr 2006 08:39:48 AM |
|
|
Mati Meron> The laws of physics are in effect for the universe, at the
time it exists.
This is an untestable assertion; an assumption not based on anything
solid. You BB guys can make anything happen with that sad escape from
reality ("At the time of the BB, no physical laws had yet formed, so
FTL inflation was possible"-hard to decide whether to LOL or crying
in despair...)
Mati Meron> Your assumption [...] is just this, an assumption, and one
not based on anything solid.
So some people are allowed to make untestable assumptions, but I am
not?
Mati Meron> The Big Bang constitutes a singularity.
Oh please: A singularity is a mathematical construct, an abstraction,
not something real. And since this "singularity" (another
untestable assertion; an assumption not based on anything solid)
supposedly had infinite mass, density, and temperature, how come it
does not still have infinite mass, density, and temperature (after all,
infinity / x = infinity)?
You also seem to imply that the [assumed!] "singularity" suddenly
jolted itself into being... Out of what? How did it work itself around
the SLoT? Or is this where certain Judeo/Christian base "creation"
[untestable!] assumptions come into play?
Mati Meron> We can, meaningfully, talk about the laws of physics
governing the evolution of the universe *since* the Big Bang.
Can you give an example of a physical law that has been shown to
"evolve over time"?
Mati Meron> No physical law has been confirmed with absolute certainty
Mea culpa... make that "tested to the accuracy required to confirm
[the SLoT]"
Mati Meron> [...] indicates the presence of a crank or an ignoramus
Neither crank nor ignoramus, thank you. And I wish I could understand
the mindset shown by so many "experts" in this forum, that drives
them to insult and belittle practically every post they see that
happens to disagree with their own prejudices. Oh well, my guess is
"spoiled and unrestricted youth" (and BTW, since you seem to
believe in the big bang stuff, I have a nice big red bridge for sale
;).
Alfred Whitehead, in Astronomy Review (#322, winter 2002) wrote:
"While conservation of mass has certainly not been tested to the
accuracy required to disprove the Steady-State theory, the principle is
of such a satisfying character and underlies so many physical laws that
most scientists would be loathe to dismiss it. The Big Bang model also
violates conservation of mass and energy (in that the entire universe
explodes into being), so this criterion cannot be used to say that one
theory is superior to the other"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology Theory Question |
27 Apr 2006 12:20:04 PM |
|
|
In article <1146145188.644068.39640@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Uno Lapideus" <henry@microtechnonstop.com> writes:
Mati Meron> The laws of physics are in effect for the universe, at the
time it exists.
This is an untestable assertion; an assumption not based on anything
solid.
It is certainly testable, as the universe is available for
observation. An assumption that said laws have existance regardless
of the existance of the universe, now this indeed is untestable.
.... snip amusing ranting ...
Well, if that would be all ...
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "platopes" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology Theory Question |
27 Apr 2006 12:25:09 PM |
|
|
Uno Lapideus wrote:
Mati Meron> The laws of physics are in effect for the universe, at the
time it exists.
This is an untestable assertion; an assumption not based on anything
solid.
A brick wall is pretty solid. Try walking through one. Congrats,
you've done your first test! By definition, laws of physics are in
effect for the universe at the time it exists, as opposed to before it
existed, if there was a "before".
You BB guys can make anything happen with that sad escape from
reality ("At the time of the BB, no physical laws had yet formed, so
FTL inflation was possible"-hard to decide whether to LOL or crying
in despair...)
I'm pretty sure inflation was governed by physical laws. Certainly,
inflation is a concept designed to explain what has been observed,
since that's the sole purpose of physical concepts....I think that the
time in which no physical laws are known to have existed is *before*
the BB.
Mati Meron> Your assumption [...] is just this, an assumption, and one
not based on anything solid.
So some people are allowed to make untestable assumptions, but I am
not?
Everyone is allowed to make un-testable assumptions.
Mati Meron> The Big Bang constitutes a singularity.
Oh please: A singularity is a mathematical construct, an abstraction,
not something real.
How do you know that?
And since this "singularity" (another
untestable assertion; an assumption not based on anything solid)
BB singularity is based on CMBR, left over from what is thought to be
the BB.
supposedly had infinite mass, density, and temperature, how come it
does not still have infinite mass, density, and temperature (after all,
infinity / x = infinity)?
How do you know the universe doesn't have infinite quantities of the
above?
You also seem to imply that the [assumed!] "singularity" suddenly
jolted itself into being...
Well, this is what is not known, hence "The laws of physics are in
effect for the universe, at the time it exists", not before.
Out of what? How did it work itself around
the SLoT? Or is this where certain Judeo/Christian base "creation"
[untestable!] assumptions come into play?
Yes, but it's not called physics.
Mati Meron> We can, meaningfully, talk about the laws of physics
governing the evolution of the universe *since* the Big Bang.
Can you give an example of a physical law that has been shown to
"evolve over time"?
"Evolution" referred to the universe, not to the laws.
Mati Meron> No physical law has been confirmed with absolute certainty
Mea culpa... make that "tested to the accuracy required to confirm
[the SLoT]"
Mati Meron> [...] indicates the presence of a crank or an ignoramus
Neither crank nor ignoramus, thank you. And I wish I could understand
the mindset shown by so many "experts" in this forum,
I wish you could understand plain English, because then I wouldn't
have taken it upon myself to try to address your problems, thereby
risking making misleading mistakes in my own interpretation.
p
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Everything has a half-life. |
27 Apr 2006 09:05:55 AM |
|
|
Hi Uno_Lapideus, Lambda_CDM is the standard model of cosmology;
but it deals only with the observable universe.
While the density of the observable universe first popped below Planck density
13.7 billion years ago... there is no limit to
how dense/old/wide the unobservable part hight've been before then.
I'm guessing that lambda is, was, and will be forever constant.
The universe, observable or not, has just always been dissipating
at a constant acceleration... lambda.
The net energy of the cosmos is negative... a virtual energy deficit.
I think dissipation is simply a property of mass-energy,
everything has a half-life.
Spacetime itself, -- over cosmic-time --, has been expanding at
a very _Constant_ rate as far back as can be observed,
and, -- most likely --, forever.
I call that dimension _Entropy_, not cosmic-time,
because it's quite seperate from the time in spacetime,
....and because entropy is how dissipated something is,
similar to heat capacity, in joules per kelvin.
Infinite Density_and_Heat has no entropy and
perfect Vacuity_and_Coldness has infinite entropy.
But infinite Density_and_Heat means infinite acceleration
and infinite Unruh radiation,
i.e. more directed energy than could exist in any imaginable cosmos.
And, likewise, it takes energy to maintain a vacuum,
so it'd take more directed energy than could exist in any imaginable cosmos
to create a perfect vacuum, so perfect Vacuity_and_Coldness couldn't exist.
Still, notionally, the cosmos is going from no entropy to infinite entropy
according to the second law of thermodynamics and
the observed value of General_Relativity's cosmological _Constant_, lambda.
WMAP and SNLS have _Very_ precisely pinned down lambda's value.
SNLS' prelimiary data, one tenth of what it hopes to get,
has lambda constant, +- 10 percent, for the last 8 billion years.
By 2008, SNLS hopes to narrow that down to a 3 percent error.
SNAP hopes to drop it to 1 percent: SNAP.LBL.GOV/science.html
Only SNAP, tentatively launching 2010, can measure high_z values,
i.e. high red-shift, deep infrared, the first supernovae.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Everything has a half-life. |
28 Apr 2006 12:49:22 PM |
|
|
In <Jeff_Relf_2006_Apr_27_xX7Z@Cotse.NET>, sent to sci.physics on Thursday
27 April 2006 15:05, Jeff…Relf (Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM) had a brainstorm and
wrote:
Jeff, you have had a whole week to learn some new stuff....
I call that dimension _Entropy_, not cosmic-time,
No one calls it "cosmic time."
This is something *you* have made up because *you* don't know any better.
(As are most of your posts)
--
T Wake
Usenet.es7 at gishpuppy.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology Theory Question |
20 Apr 2006 11:07:37 AM |
|
|
Not according to Hawkins. ( "a brief history of time")
Chapter 7.
......(from his book)
This suggestion seemed to prevent the second law of thermodynamics from
being violated in most situations.However, there was one fatal flaw. If
a black hole has entropy, then it ought to also have a temperature. But
a body with a particular temperature must emit radiation at a certain
rate. It is a matter of common experience that if one heats
up a poker in a fire it glows red hot and emits radiation, but bodies
at lower temperatures emit radiation too; one just does not normally
notice it because the amount is fairly small. This radiation is
required in order to prevent violation of the second law. So black
holes ought to emit radiation. But by their very definition, black
holes are objects that are not supposed to emit anything. It therefore
seemed that the area of the event horizon of a black hole could not be
regarded as its entropy.
......
Uno Lapideus wrote:
Since the "big bang" and the "steady state" theories both violate the
Second Law of Thermodynamics (BB in a big way, once (everything created
in a once-off event some 15 BYA); SS in infinitely many small ways (one
H atom created per cubic meter of space per 30 000 years, forever
ongoing)), these theory "families" must both be wrong -- ergo,
something else must be going on, of which we all are a part. Does
anyone in this group know of any cosmological theory that does *not*
violate the SLoT? If yes, please provide links references, or whatever
may be available!
TIA, Uno
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology Theory Question |
26 Apr 2006 08:21:03 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Not according to Hawkins. ( "a brief history of time")
Chapter 7.
.....(from his book)
This suggestion seemed to prevent the second law of thermodynamics from
being violated in most situations.However, there was one fatal flaw. If
a black hole has entropy, then it ought to also have a temperature. But
a body with a particular temperature must emit radiation at a certain
rate. It is a matter of common experience that if one heats
up a poker in a fire it glows red hot and emits radiation, but bodies
at lower temperatures emit radiation too; one just does not normally
notice it because the amount is fairly small. This radiation is
required in order to prevent violation of the second law. So black
holes ought to emit radiation. But by their very definition, black
holes are objects that are not supposed to emit anything.
Interesting argument.
What about insulation and temperature gradients? Say I have a ball of
material at temperature T1, enclosed in an insulating spherical shell
whose inner surfaces is at T1, and whose outer surface is at some T2 <
T1. At what characteristic temperature does this assembly emit
radiation? One would think T1. Apparently thermal radiation can be
blocked, and yet thermodynamics does not fail.
It is interesting to think of the thermodynamics of a black hole
though. If you want to consider it a "body", apparently it is one
locked at absolute zero. On the other hand, it might be better to
think of a black hole as a process, rather than a static situation. In
which case, equilibrium thermodynamics is on hold.
Another vague unoperationalized line of "reasoning" might ponder the
similarity of the event horizon of a black hole, and that of a distant
expanding shell around us, from beyond which no information will ever
reach us. Should that possibility bother us as violating
thermodynamics? Is a black hole the same situation which happens to be
written into what looks like a finite volume of space from the outside?
Maybe I should read what this Hawkings fellow has to say.
To bad there is nobody around here in which the product of interest and
ability in such matter, or any substantive matter, exceeds zero. These
observables do not have a strictly non-zero commutator.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology Theory Question |
28 Apr 2006 09:43:33 AM |
|
|
Uno Lapideus wrote:
Since the "big bang" and the "steady state" theories both violate the
Second Law of Thermodynamics (BB in a big way, once (everything created
in a once-off event some 15 BYA);
Why would that violate the second law of thermodynamics any more than a
firecracker does? Do you know what the thermodynamical properties of
the universe were before the universe existed? "The arrow of time"
would seem to lose meaning, anyway, before space and time existed.
SS in infinitely many small ways (one
H atom created per cubic meter of space per 30 000 years, forever
ongoing)),
Likewise for this-- why would it violate the laws of thermodynamics any
more than a river or an engine does, or filling a tire? Perhaps you've
assumed different boundary conditions than other theorists have.
these theory "families" must both be wrong -- ergo,
something else must be going on, of which we all are a part. Does
anyone in this group know of any cosmological theory that does *not*
violate the SLoT? If yes, please provide links references, or whatever
may be available!
TIA, Uno
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
