The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics  (Read 7515 times)

Dick1038

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« on: 30/12/2007 18:52:20 »
The First Law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.  But the BB created all of the energy we have today! So the law was violated. Seems to me that the "laws" of thermodynamics should be called "postulates" instead. 

that mad man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 724
    • View Profile
    • My music
Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #1 on: 30/12/2007 18:59:37 »
The energy for the Big Bang was already there, it just changed its form so no law is violated.

syhprum

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #2 on: 30/12/2007 19:02:04 »
This "law" assumes that only positive energy exists, what if there is negative energy and negative mass (the 'solid' form of energy) and the sum of both is zero ?.
All that need have happened at BB is for a separation to have occurred.  

Soul Surfer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3347
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #3 on: 31/12/2007 10:27:51 »
Dick the reason for this is that the theory is essentially incomplete because it deals with things outside of our range of observation.

There are several hypotheses to deal with this.  Firstly let me deal with the Quantum theorists approach. The Hiesenberg Uncertainty principle states precisely how much you can violate the laws of conservation of matter and energy for how long.  Examples of this are seen in many quantum related processes.  As the time period gets shorter this violation gets larger without limit and when you get back to the sort of infinitesimally small singularity that it is suggested that our universe originated from this energy could equal or even exceed the total energy in the universe as it exists at the moment.  So the big bang was essentially a quantum mechanical accident that just happened.   Proving this to be true or false is very difficult.

A currently more favoured version is that our universe is just one of a whole multiverse of such events.  The question is why do these events happen and how go they define their physical laws because it looks likely that the physical laws in different universes could be very different and lead to very different properties with the properties of our universe being rather unlikely.

A relatively small and I think growing group (including me) sees the unlikely properties of our universe and considers that it is probable that this has resulted from some sort of evolutionary process in which universes are recycled and seed each other and our universe and its physical laws therefore represents the most successful universe to perform this recycling process.  More information on this can be found in the Evolutionary Cosmology thread in the new theories section.  Looking for this within our universe does have some hope of proof or disproof.
« Last Edit: 31/12/2007 10:30:42 by Soul Surfer »

Dick1038

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #4 on: 31/12/2007 18:25:24 »
Thanks Soul Surfer.  I still believe that if there were no time nor space before the BB, as some theorist contend, then there was no Quantum Field either.

I just finished a book titled, "The New Quantum Universe," by Tony Hey and Patrick Walters. It explained how the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle works to allow particles to do strange things if they are quick enough about it, e.g., electrons tunneling through energy barriers. I was amazed how brilliant the early theorist were to deduce all of the strangeness of the quantum world.

Perhaps all of the dark matter out there is leftovers from a previous universe that had different physical laws.

If the universe recycled, then isn't the second law of thermodynamics (about entropy) being violated?

Soul Surfer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3347
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #5 on: 01/01/2008 10:59:11 »
A lot of the dark matter is almost certainly some particle that is real and only interacts via gravity and is moving too fast to be affected much by things like normal stars.  There are several contenders for this from mininmum sized black holes  to sterile neutinos and axions.

About the second law of thermodynamics in a recycling universe.  It is unlikely that the basic principles of the law are violated because these rules would apply to any system of interacting particles but during the collapse that preceeds he expansion dimensions of space and time and real and imaginary (a bit like the real and imaginary numbers used to calculate electromagnetic processes) are exchanged.  Stephen hawking has tried to illustrate processes like this in some of his writings.

moo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #6 on: 04/02/2014 00:53:36 »
If the big bang creates time (and space), then the concept of it happening at a point in time, doesn't really make sense.  As soul surfer says,  it deals with things outside of our range of observation.
Therefore maybe it doesn't really violate the first law of thermodynamics,  maybe the first law of thermodynamics just doesn't deal with things outside of whatever time is.

flr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #7 on: 04/02/2014 12:14:10 »
1. There is no ex-nihilis creation
2. All the energy in this universe existed forever in the past and it will exist forever in the future in some form.
3. Big bang was a process in which the energy changed from a more ordered to more disordered but not a process that created energy ex-nihilis
4. Since it can't be created or destroyed, the energy in the universe does not have a cause. It was not caused by anything; it just exists here forever and ever in some form.

yor_on

  • Too Much Free Time Level Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 10296
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #8 on: 04/02/2014 12:47:24 »
A interesting concept SoulSurfer. Universes with a direction then, 'evolution' applied to an idea of making universes? Or just randomness and coincidence, making this universe different, no direction from 'simplicity into complexity'?

moo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #9 on: 04/02/2014 23:24:32 »
flr - good point, take the word 'create' out of my post, maybe more that our time and space don't go 'past' the big bang.

Bill S

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1246
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #10 on: 06/02/2014 21:09:11 »
Quote from: moo
maybe the first law of thermodynamics just doesn't deal with things outside of whatever time is.

Wouldn't it be difficult for anything to deal with anything without time in which to do the dealing?

In fact, if there were no time before the Big Bang, how could it have been triggered?

Bill S

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1246
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #11 on: 06/02/2014 21:46:26 »
Quote from: flr
4. Since it can't be created or destroyed, the energy in the universe does not have a cause. It was not caused by anything; it just exists here forever and ever in some form.

From my previous post it will be obvious that I am not arguing against something being eternal.  What I have to take issue with though is the idea of change in eternity.

I am going to use the term “cosmos” to avoid the finite/infinite Universe debate.

If the cosmos is infinite, everything that can happen does happen, an infinite number of times.

If the cosmos is infinite, it has already existed for infinite time; therefore, everything that can happen has happened, an infinite number of times.

If that is the case, what else is there that can happen?  Why are we still experiencing change?
 


jeffreyH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1415
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #12 on: 07/02/2014 05:53:16 »
Quote from: flr
4. Since it can't be created or destroyed, the energy in the universe does not have a cause. It was not caused by anything; it just exists here forever and ever in some form.

From my previous post it will be obvious that I am not arguing against something being eternal.  What I have to take issue with though is the idea of change in eternity.

I am going to use the term “cosmos” to avoid the finite/infinite Universe debate.

If the cosmos is infinite, everything that can happen does happen, an infinite number of times.

If the cosmos is infinite, it has already existed for infinite time; therefore, everything that can happen has happened, an infinite number of times.

If that is the case, what else is there that can happen?  Why are we still experiencing change?

Bill I really like your logic. You are an excellent philosopher.

flr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #13 on: 07/02/2014 18:06:13 »
From my previous post it will be obvious that I am not arguing against something being eternal.  What I have to take issue with though is the idea of change in eternity.
I am going to use the term “cosmos” to avoid the finite/infinite Universe debate.
If the cosmos is infinite, everything that can happen does happen, an infinite number of times.
If the cosmos is infinite, it has already existed for infinite time; therefore, everything that can happen has happened, an infinite number of times.
If that is the case, what else is there that can happen?  Why are we still experiencing change?


Because "everything that can happen does happen, an infinite number of times."

(there are still left "an infinite number of times" to happen all that can happen, even if it did happened in the past for another "infinite number of time".)

---------
But, does entropy (and irreversibility) allows something to happen an infinite number of times?

flr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #14 on: 07/02/2014 18:08:12 »

How could we understand the conservation of energy in a universe that contains an infinite amount of energy in it?

flr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #15 on: 07/02/2014 19:08:57 »
If space expands the wavelength of photons became red-shifted.
Does that means the photons loose energy due to universe expansion?
Then how is energy conserved?

andreasva

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #16 on: 07/02/2014 19:27:41 »
I could cut and paste my response from the "Could dark energy simply be gravity?" thread which applies to this thread, but I won't.  Expansion is not proven.  Dark energy is not proven.  The BB is not proven.  These are hypothetical concepts with potential mathematical solutions.  I'm sure the math is correct, as you can make it work if you tried hard enough, but I'm not convinced anyone in the scientific community truly has a handle on these things.  It would only take one human misconception to bring down this house of cards.

moo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #17 on: 13/02/2014 00:10:13 »
andreasva - liked the other thread.  Not sure what the rules are about quoting cross thread are, so if I break etiquette I do apologise.

Quote
All matter in the universe was created at the same time and from every conceivable coordinate.

Which means that if a big bang happened, it happened here.  Is this the conceptual singularity?

But if you add in time to be similar to space, do you observe the same singularity.  I.e. if a big bang happened it happened now? 

This statement seems not to make much sense (how can it happen now), so is the perceived singularity in space (and potentially time) like standing on a sphere and working out the furthest single point (the opposite side).  However if you went to a different point you would observe a different furthest single point. 

To completely somewhere and sometime else, if people thought about a big bang in the same way as we do, could we be at someone else's big bang?

If so, thinking about it as a 'big bang' seems misleading, and maybe we don't need to worry about it breaking the first law of thermodynamics.

jeffreyH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1415
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #18 on: 13/02/2014 12:16:43 »
If space and time did not exist at the big bang then what is to say the laws of thermodynamics were not themselves created in the big bang and other universes have completely different laws of thermodynamics or none at all because they experience something else. If you take time and space and matter out of the equation then everything else must go. All the absolutes as well.

Bill S

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1246
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #19 on: 16/02/2014 17:33:16 »
Quote from: JeffreyH
Bill I really like your logic. You are an excellent philosopher.

Thanks Jeffrey.  Some of the responses I receive suggest I might be a better philosopher than scientist.  That may be what you meant, but I take it as a compliment, anyway.  :)

Bill S

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1246
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #20 on: 16/02/2014 17:52:58 »
Quote from: flr
Because "everything that can happen does happen, an infinite number of times."

(there are still left "an infinite number of times" to happen all that can happen, even if it did happened in the past for another "infinite number of time".)

You must be either a scientist or a mathematician.  It seems impossible to separate scientists and mathematicians from mathematical infinities, which are only approximations. 

The following thought scenario links this discussion with that of another thread.

There is a road of infinite length, in the middle of which there is a bridge.

How do I know the bridge is in the middle? I know that because the road must extend to infinity on either side.

Of course, we all know that, physically, there cannot be a road of infinite length because, as far as we know, the only places where a road could be built are finite, but this is a "thought scenario".

One night the Finite Defence League blow up the bridge, so no one can cross from one side to the other. We know that the road extends to infinity in both directions, but can each section really be considered infinite?

What do we have? Is it two halves of infinity, two infinite roads or two finite roads?

Intuitively, one might say that, as each half goes to infinity, we must have two infinite roads. That seems more reasonable than "two halves of infinity".  Moreover, we know that intuition does not necessarily equal good science.

However, consider that if you are at a point (eg 1km from the bridge site) along the road, and you travel towards the break; in 1km you come to the end of "infinity". Does this make sense?

Because we reach an end, whichever side we approach from, it is tempting to argue that the road segments are finite. However, if members of the People’s Infinite Front decide to repair the bridge, but they are infinitely far away along the road; can they ever reach the bridge? The answer must surely be “no”.

We were able to reach the end, so in our frame of reference, the road is finite; but the PIF, who were infinitely far away could never reach the bridge, so in their frame of reference it must be infinitely far away. For them, the road segments go on infinitely in both directions.

Does this mean that infinity is relative? It would seem to suggest that.

If infinity is relative, so must eternity be. This must raise the question: Could there be a frame of reference in which there might have been absolutely nothing, yet there might still be something now?

Perhaps it would save crossed wires if I say that I think there would not be, but I could have missed something.

It might be argued that we cannot, with justification, extrapolate from what we observe in the Universe to what might be the conditions outside, and that we cannot say with certainty that, outside the Universe causality could not be such that something could be "spawned" by absolutely nothing.

Personally, I think that's "a bridge too far", but that is just a non-expert opinion.

jeffreyH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1415
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #21 on: 17/02/2014 00:12:16 »
Quote from: flr
Because "everything that can happen does happen, an infinite number of times."

(there are still left "an infinite number of times" to happen all that can happen, even if it did happened in the past for another "infinite number of time".)

You must be either a scientist or a mathematician.  It seems impossible to separate scientists and mathematicians from mathematical infinities, which are only approximations. 

The following thought scenario links this discussion with that of another thread.

There is a road of infinite length, in the middle of which there is a bridge.

How do I know the bridge is in the middle? I know that because the road must extend to infinity on either side.

Of course, we all know that, physically, there cannot be a road of infinite length because, as far as we know, the only places where a road could be built are finite, but this is a "thought scenario".

One night the Finite Defence League blow up the bridge, so no one can cross from one side to the other. We know that the road extends to infinity in both directions, but can each section really be considered infinite?

What do we have? Is it two halves of infinity, two infinite roads or two finite roads?

Intuitively, one might say that, as each half goes to infinity, we must have two infinite roads. That seems more reasonable than "two halves of infinity".  Moreover, we know that intuition does not necessarily equal good science.

However, consider that if you are at a point (eg 1km from the bridge site) along the road, and you travel towards the break; in 1km you come to the end of "infinity". Does this make sense?

Because we reach an end, whichever side we approach from, it is tempting to argue that the road segments are finite. However, if members of the People’s Infinite Front decide to repair the bridge, but they are infinitely far away along the road; can they ever reach the bridge? The answer must surely be “no”.

We were able to reach the end, so in our frame of reference, the road is finite; but the PIF, who were infinitely far away could never reach the bridge, so in their frame of reference it must be infinitely far away. For them, the road segments go on infinitely in both directions.

Does this mean that infinity is relative? It would seem to suggest that.

If infinity is relative, so must eternity be. This must raise the question: Could there be a frame of reference in which there might have been absolutely nothing, yet there might still be something now?

Perhaps it would save crossed wires if I say that I think there would not be, but I could have missed something.

It might be argued that we cannot, with justification, extrapolate from what we observe in the Universe to what might be the conditions outside, and that we cannot say with certainty that, outside the Universe causality could not be such that something could be "spawned" by absolutely nothing.

Personally, I think that's "a bridge too far", but that is just a non-expert opinion.

Bill take it from me you leave all the mathematicians and scientists standing in your wake. They don't realize it though.

Bill S

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1246
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #22 on: 18/02/2014 20:15:27 »
Quote from: flr
(there are still left "an infinite number of times" to happen all that can happen, even if it did happened in the past for another "infinite number of time".)


How many infinite numbers of times are there?

Cantor maintained that there was an infinite number of infinities, but even he ran into problems with "absolute infinity".

It is easy to forget that Cantor's infinities were mathematical infinities which are fine for the purpose for which they are intended, but are not really infinite.

ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 333
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #23 on: 19/02/2014 12:48:13 »
before the big bang the entire universe was contained in a single spot, All that mass in a single spot created a huge gravitational field more powerful then all the black holes in the universe combined. The matter in the "super black hole/singularity" was pressure induced into a bois einstine condensate, the force of gravity was too much and crushed the matter into energy causing the big bang. There is proof that matter existed before the big bang too.

You see when all of that matter turned into energy simultaneously the massive gravitational field disappeared in a split second (because energy has no mass), This caused rippling gravity waves that persist to this day  these gravity waves are called dark energy. These dark energy gravity waves are huge, each wave length is millions of light years across. Dark energy proves that matter existed before the big bang because the rate of expansion of the universe correlates to calculations as to the size of the big bang's gravity waves.

Matter was made out of energy soon after the big bang and will soon ball up into another singularity for another big bang to occur. Matter is renewed by this process but energy lasts forever and has always been a property of the fabric of space which also lasts forever. It lasts forever because it's unaffected by time (because they are one in the same thing.)

JP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3763
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #24 on: 19/02/2014 16:14:18 »
Quote from: flr
Because "everything that can happen does happen, an infinite number of times."

(there are still left "an infinite number of times" to happen all that can happen, even if it did happened in the past for another "infinite number of time".)

You must be either a scientist or a mathematician.  It seems impossible to separate scientists and mathematicians from mathematical infinities, which are only approximations. 

The following thought scenario links this discussion with that of another thread.

There is a road of infinite length, in the middle of which there is a bridge.

How do I know the bridge is in the middle? I know that because the road must extend to infinity on either side.

Of course, we all know that, physically, there cannot be a road of infinite length because, as far as we know, the only places where a road could be built are finite, but this is a "thought scenario".

One night the Finite Defence League blow up the bridge, so no one can cross from one side to the other. We know that the road extends to infinity in both directions, but can each section really be considered infinite?

What do we have? Is it two halves of infinity, two infinite roads or two finite roads?

Intuitively, one might say that, as each half goes to infinity, we must have two infinite roads. That seems more reasonable than "two halves of infinity".  Moreover, we know that intuition does not necessarily equal good science.

However, consider that if you are at a point (eg 1km from the bridge site) along the road, and you travel towards the break; in 1km you come to the end of "infinity". Does this make sense?

Because we reach an end, whichever side we approach from, it is tempting to argue that the road segments are finite. However, if members of the People’s Infinite Front decide to repair the bridge, but they are infinitely far away along the road; can they ever reach the bridge? The answer must surely be “no”.

We were able to reach the end, so in our frame of reference, the road is finite; but the PIF, who were infinitely far away could never reach the bridge, so in their frame of reference it must be infinitely far away. For them, the road segments go on infinitely in both directions.

Does this mean that infinity is relative? It would seem to suggest that.

If infinity is relative, so must eternity be. This must raise the question: Could there be a frame of reference in which there might have been absolutely nothing, yet there might still be something now?

Perhaps it would save crossed wires if I say that I think there would not be, but I could have missed something.

It might be argued that we cannot, with justification, extrapolate from what we observe in the Universe to what might be the conditions outside, and that we cannot say with certainty that, outside the Universe causality could not be such that something could be "spawned" by absolutely nothing.

Personally, I think that's "a bridge too far", but that is just a non-expert opinion.

Another infinity thread?  Is the number of threads we have on infinity infinite or is it just very large?  :)

I think I should make it clear, in case anyone's browsing this thread looking for scientific answers, that no one knows if infinity is physically realizable or not.  I tend to lean towards Bill's perspective that infinity is probably not physical, but it's an open question.  There are those who would disagree with me and we all have zero evidence to back up our claims.  :p

The problem is that science progresses by testing hypotheses, and so far as I know there is no testable hypothesis that could distinguish between an infinite universe or merely a very large universe on the basis of current observations.  In fact, any sufficiently large, expanding universe will always have parts that we simply can't see because light can only have traveled so far in a finite time since the big bang.  The fact that the universe appears to be accelerating in its expansion indicates that there are parts we may NEVER be able to see.

 

SMF 2.0 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines