|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,471 Year: 3,728/9,624 Month: 599/974 Week: 212/276 Day: 52/34 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Big Bang and Absolute Zero | |||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Welcome to EvC, TiNEP (do you mind if I call you that?)
You can hone your writing and debating skills here, have a bit of fun and, if you are willing, even learn stuff. But we do ask that you co-operate by helping keep things organized. We limit each thread to about 300 posts so we try to keep the topic in each one pretty tightly focussed. That is why you have been asked to pay attention to the topic. It also helps those who only want to read about certain things and ignore others. Hopefully the title of the topic will give them a clue about whether they want to read it or not. (And a small point. If is nice if you pick descriptive post titles as well.) Please pay particular attention to the need for evidence and careful chains of reasoning in the "science side" of the house. Failure to stick to that can result in suspensions. Your post 44 is also an example of the kind of thing we discourage. Do not take shots at the other posters. Do not waste post with one-liners that have little or no content. Again, welcome aboard. Edited by AdminNosy, : spelling again
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13023 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Hi, 'No Proof'.
I was hoping that a few hints would be sufficient, but apparently not, so I'm going to step in as moderator. EvC Forum has Forum Guidelines, you're going to have to follow them. About this:
im not talking about religion im stating that scientifically there has to be a God. The Forum Guidelines state:
If you'd like to discuss the scientific evidence for God, please propose a new thread over at [forum=-25]. Discussion here at EvC Forum takes the form of evidence and argument. You need both. The Forum Guidelines state:
Take special note of the last portion, "Avoid bare assertions." Most of your messages have consisted of bare assertions with no supporting evidence or argument, even after being challenged. Enforcement of the Forum Guidelines is in the form of temporary suspensions, usually beginning at 24 hours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
there is no evo proof Member (Idle past 5840 days) Posts: 8 Joined: |
my point exactly were not in a closed system
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Catholic Scientist writes: If we're not in a closed system then the 2nd law of Thermo doesn't apply. Actually, 2LOT holds for both open and closed systems. It's just that thermodynamic problems are easier to consider for closed systems, so we usually talk about closed systems rather than open ones. The simplest statement of 2LOT is for a closed system, i.e., "Entropy cannot decrease in a closed system." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Some problematic factors relative to alleged absolute zero are:
1. There was no place/area in which it could have existed.2. There was no place/area in which it could have expanded into. 3. There was no time in which it could have existed. 4. It satisfies none of the LOTs. Edited by Buzsaw, : as designated in context Edited by Buzsaw, : fix tech error in first edit BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Buzsaw writes: Some problematic factors relative to alleged absolute zero are: There was no alleged absolute zero. As was explained in the the first reply in this thread (Message 3) and elaborated on in subsequent posts, the universe began in a small, dense extremely hot state, definitely not absolute zero. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Percy writes: There was no alleged absolute zero. As was explained in the the first reply in this thread (Message 3) and elaborated on in subsequent posts, the universe began in a small, dense extremely hot state, definitely not absolute zero. Then I would assume that the problems I've cited would apply to the extremely hot state, having no place to exist, no outside of and no time in which it could have existed. Is this state called the singularity? If not what would you call it? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.2 |
Then I would assume that the problems I've cited would apply to the extremely hot state, having no place to exist, no outside of and no time in which it could have existed. Is this state called the singularity? If not what would you call it? It would seem you have a misconception regarding the Big Bang model. At T=0, you cannot say there was "no time in which it (the Universe) could have existed." T=0 is simply a coordinate, a location in time, which is a dimension in the same sense as the spacial dimension. To say that "time did not exist at T=0" is not true; you could say that the concept of "before" T=0 does not make sense in the same way that asking what is North of teh North Pole does not make sense, but in no way is there a suggestion that there is "no time in which it could have existed." Similarly, at T=0 the spacial dimensions length, width and height were "smaller" than they are today. In fact, it is the constriction of the spacial dimensions (a reversal of the directly observed expansion of the Universe) that causes the extreme density and heat of the first moments - all of the energy and matter in the Universe were compressed into a very small volume. But again, saying that the spacial dimensions were smaller than they are today, even to the degree where the entirety of the Universe was compressed to a size analogous to a modern atom, still does not suggest there is "no place" in which the matter and energy of the Universe could exist. It's true that it did not exist in the form we see today, as it was too hot and too small for conventional atoms and subatomic particles - it took time for the Universe to expand and cool down enough to form even protons and electrons from the quark-gluon plasma. But again, the Big Bang model does not imply there was ever "no space," just as it does not imply that there was ever "no time." The "no outside" bit is a conundrum. There may be additional dimensions of which the four dimensions of space and time that comprise our Universe are but a subset, meaning there could be multiple Universe existing in a fifth dimension of sorts. But the Big Bang model doesn't involve such things - there are hypotheses out there that suggest additional dimensions, but they aren't relevant to this discussion as they have been inadequately tested (as far as I understand, they are mathematical models that require testing to determine accuracy and relevance to reality). The singularity is the point at which the mathematics and laws of physics we currently use stop making any sense when applied to the state of the Universe. In the time between T=0 and T=10^-43, which is the barest, tiniest fraction of a second, we cannot describe the Universe or make meaningful testable predictions regarding the Universe because of the extreme conditions of density and heat. We require additional information regarding high-energy physics to venture into that bare moment, and scientists are working on experiments to gain that information as we speak. So your "problems" with the Big Bang model don't really exist. There is no point in the existence of the Universe where there is "no time." There is no point in the existence of the Universe where there is "no space." Time and space are features of the Universe, and your "problems" are analogous to saying "your model of water doesn't work because there was no wet." "Wetness" is a property of water; when discussing the Universe, time and space are basically what we're discussing, and can never be said to "not exist" without the Universe not existing. And of course the Big Bang is not a model of the "origin" of the Universe in terms of explaining why it exists; it is a model of the observed expansion of the Universe, with testable predictions regarding the past all the way back to T=0.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Rahven writes: But again, saying that the spacial dimensions were smaller than they are today, even to the degree where the entirety of the Universe was compressed to a size analogous to a modern atom, still does not suggest there is "no place" in which the matter and energy of the Universe could exist. Your phrase does not suggest there is "no place" in which the matter and energy of the Universe could exist implies a place in which the matter and energy of the Universe could exist, does it not? If so, when Universe was T=0 what place/area did it exist in? If you say "no place" then we're back to square one relative to my problem that there was no place for the singularity to have existed. As well, the 1LoT which we observe as a law of of science apparantly did not apply unless the alleged singularity was eternal. What it seems to boil down to is that the singularity and the Big Bang model has as many, if not more unknowns as the Buzsaw ID creationist model. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypso Junior Member (Idle past 5177 days) Posts: 28 Joined: |
Rahvin writes: And of course the Big Bang is not a model of the "origin" of the Universe in terms of explaining why it exists; it is a model of the observed expansion of the Universe, with testable predictions regarding the past all the way back to T=0. Did you mean back to T=10^-43 seconds?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
A thread titled The Big Bang and Absolute Zero may not be the best place to discuss your T=0 issues. Perhaps you should propose a thread over at [forum=-25].
--Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024