OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

[Jack Simth]

When I say "energy coming from nowhere" I mean energy that has no source, no past; the true creation of energy. Energy that comes from an unobservable location still comes from somewhere - the unobserveable location. The extra dimensions of string theory allow for the "creation" of energy - but only in that no source was observeable due to 3- (or 4-, depending on how you look at it)-d observations in a supposed 11-d universe; however, that energy still came from somewhere even though that somewhere was neither observed nor observeable.

Sufficent?

[atul]

Hopping in the conversation out of nowhere,

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Rather than just giving an insult, could you instead answer a simple question: which resaonably proven theory is it that either permits energy to come from nowhere or permits order in energy to be reclaimed without dumping disorder into other energy?

Please don't get upset if someone whose education is centered around physics gets a bit frustrated at that kind of questions. The thing being, along with philosophy, physics is one of the most vocally misunderstood sciences. (Last summer I had the joy of following a news conversation where this guy was absolutely sure about world being 6000-year old etc since in a closed system entropy would increase and earth was such a system. Ergo creation etc. Doh)

Boundary conditions. Current laws of physics, as we now formulate them, aren't valid in certain places, such as Big Bang or event horizon. So if you ask what's beoynd them, the answer would be along the lines "Don't know". That doesn't invalidate current theories, just puts limits to where you can use them. (like, Newtonian versus relativistic physics)

And btw, as I've understood it, the stuff commonly called laws of physics are just (mathematical) representation of what we can observe. To call it a true thing would go in the realm of religion, not science. If it turned out that all the forces are actually created by invisible elves the physics, as we practise it, wouldn't change as long as it could be assured that said elves were consistent in their actions. Only the interpretation.

And I'm sure this post is filled with mistakes also. Otoh, I'm just majoring in physics, not too much can be expected.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
When I say "energy coming from nowhere" I mean energy that has no source, no past; the true creation of energy. Energy that comes from an unobservable location still comes from somewhere - the unobserveable location. The extra dimensions of string theory allow for the "creation" of energy - but only in that no source was observeable due to 3- (or 4-, depending on how you look at it)-d observations in a supposed 11-d universe; however, that energy still came from somewhere even though that somewhere was neither observed nor observeable.

Sufficent?

Sufficient? Yes and no. You've now defined "energy coming from nowhere". Next, a definition of "reasonably proven" would help. Except that it's moot because there are no "reasonably proven" theories of cosmology, and those that we have all state you cannot have "energy coming from nowhere" as you've defined it. (The old "Steady State" theory is quite dead.) BTW, the closest thing to "reasonably proven" theories in all of physics are Einstein's General and Special theories, and the jury is still out on his General. I expect we'll see it superseded within my lifetime, as Newton's was superseded by Einstein's. (Newton's isn't wrong, just incomplete. And I don't think Einstein's is complete either.)

I suspect you bring this up because you have a supposition that you wish to cite. Please do so.

[spirokeat]

Arry,

Im not so sure you can use occams razor on the existence of god, in many situations he IS the most simple solution or reason for the apparent illogical existence of the universe as it is.

However, you seem to be getting quite heated in a situation where certainly I am only playing around with some cenceptual theories and most assuredly dont have a knock-down answer to the greater questions that plague philosophy and mankind.

So, that said, I'll bow out of this conversation. Good talking all. Seeya on the next thread.

Spiro.

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
When I say "energy coming from nowhere" I mean energy that has no source, no past; the true creation of energy. Energy that comes from an unobservable location still comes from somewhere - the unobserveable location. The extra dimensions of string theory allow for the "creation" of energy - but only in that no source was observeable due to 3- (or 4-, depending on how you look at it)-d observations in a supposed 11-d universe; however, that energy still came from somewhere even though that somewhere was neither observed nor observeable.

Sufficent?

Perhaps you can explain, since you say energy can't come from nowhere - where did Dog come from? Is God not energy, if he exists? If Dog can come from nowhere, so can energy. So can free beer and the tooth fairy.

And unlike God - I've seen evidence of free beer and the tooth fairy.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by atul:
And I'm sure this post is filled with mistakes also. Otoh, I'm just majoring in physics, not too much can be expected.

You did fine. You seem to have a good grasp of the concepts. Congrats.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by spirokeat:
Im not so sure you can use occams razor on the existence of god, in many situations he IS the most simple solution or reason for the apparent illogical existence of the universe as it is.

Postulating omniscient & omnipotent beings is NOT an Occam solution. The Occam solution to the universe appearing "illogical" is: human ignorance.

Human's once thought (and some still do) that various gods caused rain, sunshine, volcanoes, etc. Classic examples of ignorance.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by atul:
Boundary conditions. Current laws of physics, as we now formulate them, aren't valid in certain places, such as Big Bang or event horizon. So if you ask what's beoynd them, the answer would be along the lines "Don't know". That doesn't invalidate current theories, just puts limits to where you can use them. (like, Newtonian versus relativistic physics)

The event horizon of a black hole, as far as anyone can tell, anyway, doesn't do anything important to either entropy or conservation of energy; when mass or energy goes over the event horizon of a black hole, it increases the mass of the black hole accordingly. Current theory (I'm using the term loosely, I know) has it that black holes slowly evaporate into radiation - at a net increase in entropy. Newtonian and relativistic physics both support conservation of energy - to the point where relativity actually relies on the conservation of energy to do many of it's transitions in coming up with the theory, although it had to change the definition of energy to make everything work. Historically, every time someone has thought they have come up with a way around either, it has been an issue of a new form of energy, a mistake/contamination somewhere along the line, or a hoax. Those two principals are as proven as anything gets in physics, boundaries or no. I've yet to hear of any credible scientific hypothesis that would truly violate either without referring to God in some form.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by atul:
Boundary conditions. Current laws of physics, as we now formulate them, aren't valid in certain places, such as Big Bang or event horizon.

Sorry, I overlooked a mistake you made. The are no unusual physics involved with the "event horizon" of a black hole. It is simply a mathematical region where matter inside that radius must travel faster than the speed of light if it were to escape to the other side of the "dividing line". The center of a black hole (a singularity in some theories) and the singularity of the Big Bang (again, in certain theories) is where the laws of physics (as we presently understand them) break down. IOW, you get mathematical infinities as solutions to equations.

BTW, there is a current theory, not particularly well-known by most people, that postulates that a black hole does not contain a singularity, and that some rather exotic stuff lies within the event horizon.

EDIT: typo

[ July 29, 2004, 14:44: Message edited by: Arryn ]

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Arryn:
Sufficient? Yes and no. You've now defined "energy coming from nowhere". Next, a definition of "reasonably proven" would help. Except that it's moot because there are no "reasonably proven" theories of cosmology, and those that we have all state you cannot have "energy coming from nowhere" as you've defined it. (The old "Steady State" theory is quite dead.) BTW, the closest thing to "reasonably proven" theories in all of physics are Einstein's General and Special theories, and the jury is still out on his General. I expect we'll see it superseded within my lifetime, as Newton's was superseded by Einstein's. (Newton's isn't wrong, just incomplete. And I don't think Einstein's is complete either.)

The definition of "reasonably proven" I'm using for this debate is looser than you seem to be wanting to use - any theory that has carried through on a reasonable number of tests will suffice for these purposes.

Originally posted by Arryn:

I suspect you bring this up because you have a supposition that you wish to cite. Please do so.

I can repost the conclusion of my proof from earlier (a one of four must be true) if you like, but mostly my supposition is that you can't logically refute the existance of Him as readily as you appear to think you can.