Breaking Laws of Thermodynamics

The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. However, it can not be created nor destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant. Einstein's famous equation (written below) describes the relationship between energy and matter:E = MC2
In the equation above, energy (E) is equal to matter (M) times the square of a constant (C). Einstein suggested that energy and matter are interchangeable. His equation also suggests that the quantity of energy and matter in the Universe is fixed.created means: made to existyou're

Hi Thermo, welcome to EvC.Can I ask you to read this formating help post? It will give you a heads up on how to reply, quote, link to images, etc. Also necessary to time well spent here is the Forum Guidelines, please read these also.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

What your interlocutors are being quite vague about, TDLB, is that you haven't considered the full implications of the First Law.That is, just because I have energy here does not mean the energy total of the entire universe has increase because I see an increase here. You even said so, yourself: "Energy can be transferred from one system to another."So think about it: If there is energy here, what might exist elsewhere? There are particles and there are antiparticles. As the Casimir Effect shows us, the vacuum itself is continually fluctuating, creating virtual particle pairs constantly that then immediately annihilate each other.In other words, everything adding up to zero is no different from nothingness itself.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

yes, but the law also states that "enery cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form into another. But then how does energy exist if it cannot be created.

Well, maybe it doesn't exist? Maybe we only think it exists?That is scientists studying what is came up with a concept of energy and matter. This model of physical reality, along with things like the periodic table allowed them to predict the behaviour for an example germane to E=MC^2 of uranium and they made an atom bomb. The math was good.How does anything exist? We don't know. We only suspect that it does and find it most functional to agree that it does, and that thus far we have some mathamatical models that work most of the time. It does appear that nothing in the universe exists independent of anything else, but rather the universe exists and is in constant transformation at different rates as a vast interdependent whole.lfen

Is there any reason to think it has not always existed?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

TLB No this is incorrect.The equation means energy is equal to mass times the square of the speed of light.They are not interchangeable they are different aspects of the same thing.Mass is a property of matter and is a numerical measure of the inertia of a body which is defined as its resistance to a change in that body's state of motion.

Well if the big bang theory is correct there is no point in time that it didn't exist. I would assume that philosophically this is the same as "always existing"?

Hello, happy_atheist (although, according to some you are not really an atheist, nor really happy.)The usual analogy is a globe, and the north-south direction representing time, and the north pole being "time zero". Since there is no earth north of the north pole, nor south of the south pole, then all existing latitudes represent a part of the earth, just like all possible time coordinates represent a time in the universe, ie, the universe has always existed. Kind of a tautology, if one properly defines "always existing", but one that I like.But what I think Crashfrog was referring to was that our present understanding of the laws of physics allow us to only get within some minute fraction of a second after the supposed Big Bang event, and that it is an assumption that we can extrapolate the rate of expansion backwards to the initial singularity. But it may be possible that a newer understanding of the elementary principles of physics will show that this is an unwarranted assumption -- perhaps the univers was never a singularity, or maybe our portion of the universe was a singularity in a larger univers that has always existed.

Yeah, I originally chose this nickname for yahoo to see how many people would tell me that i'm neither It's also good for answering the two most common questions in there, "How are you?" and "What religion are you?" Yes, I like that one too. First saw it in Hawkings Brief History Of Time book.

DeletedThis message has been edited by Brian, 09-05-2004 04:24 PM

Hi all,I am new posting to the forum but I have been reading for awhile. This is my first post. I thought this question was interesting because of its implications to the 'creation must have a creator' argument. I may be answering a question with a question but does a law of physics in our universe now necessarily apply to some theoretical universe prior to the big bang? If my basic understanding of the creation of the universe is correct then there was not even time prior to the big bang. Please forgive me if I am wrong or misstating something about the big bang.Some more related questions:1. Why does the universe have as much matter/energy as it does if it is constant?
2. What does it even mean to exist if there is no 4th dimension of time?These are the things that some of my friends and I talk about over a game of pool downtown. I hypothesize that we will probably never be able to answer these questions and the laws of physics as we known them really only apply to the universe post big bang.

welcome to the fray Jazzns. It gets murky when you get into the upper stratospheres of astrophysics. but I have been told that gravity works into the equations as negative energy (this gets into the explanation of why they now have added "dark energy" to the universe on top of "dark matter" to make the equations balance and match observations (patchwork science imho) but there it is)AND when you sum up the universe you end up with net zero (or should I say total so people aren't rushing out to invest in the dialup company ).If it all adds up to zero and the universe started at zero, then conservation is maintained.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Right on. I suppose 0 would make a pretty good constant. Would the 'creation event' then be the seperation of nothing into the continuum of positive and negative energy?If the constant is 0 then I suppose we can just close up shop on this thread. I really don't think any of the laws of thermodynamics contradict or even apply to universal creation. Any positive energy that exists must be accompanied by an equivalent negative energy somewhere else in the universe. I suppose we could switch to debating whether or not the net energy of the universe is really 0. I don't necessarily have enough knowledge of this topic to disagree. Would this be off topic enough to require a new thread?

---

-Nasser