Thermodynamics and Cosmology

[coldcreation]

“The test of extrapolation to the most distant future does not, I think, disclose any definite weakness in the present system of science—in particular, in the second law of thermodynamics on which physical science so largely relies. It is true that the extrapolation foretells that the material universe will some day arrive at a state of dead sameness and so virtually come to an end; to my mind that is a rather happy avoidance of a nightmare of eternal repetition. It is the opposite extrapolation towards the past which gives real cause to suspect a weakness in the present conceptions of science. The beginning seems to present insurmountable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural. We may have to let it go at that…Instead of honestly facing the intricacies of our problem, we may be led to think that its difficulties have been solved when they have only been swept over the boundary. Sweeping them back and back, the pile increases until it forms an unclimbable barrier. Perhaps it is this barrier that we call “the beginning.” (Eddington, A. 1958, The Expanding Universe, pp. 124-125)

Nothing valid is created without nature.

Coldcreation

[Tormod]

I agree to your comment.

But - the Eddington quote is almost 50 years old. Lots of things have happened since then...it would be interesting to hear what the good man would have to say today.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Tormod

I agree to your comment.

But - the Eddington quote is almost 50 years old. Lots of things have happened since then...it would be interesting to hear what the good man would have to say today.

What has happened, what has changed since Eddington's words? I'd like to hear what Einstein would have to say about the new cosmological constant alsmost a century after its introduction. It is already well known what he thought of BB cosmology (the same as Eddington).

[coldcreation]

The entropy problem: Entropy is a thermodynamic quality of matter, often defined by the degree of disorder (randomness) of a system. It is known to increase with time. When applied to the universe as a whole, the entropy should have been very low to begin with, and increased with time. By deduction, the universe must have been a very ordered system in its very early stages. Why? Entropy is essentially a conserved quantity in an expanding universe. The conclusion must be that the entropy of the universe has always been huge. The standard models do not explain why (Pagels 1985).

Hmmm

[UncleAl]

One diagnostic weakness of a crackpot is recruitment of selective support from obsolete and discredited literature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_Bound
Message-ID: 1119896822.669491.38020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.c om

"As Jacobson showed in 1995, the mere imposition of the Bekenstein bound in conjunction with the laws of thermodynamics implies general relativity."

1995 is more recent than 1958. Note that while alive Eddington crushed the career of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar - 1983 Physics Nobel Prize - because Eddington could not comprehend the mathematics of black holes. Eddington also demanded a steady-state universe that is mathematically impossible and empirical crap. Eddington was grievously incorrect on both counts by simple observation.

A steady state universe is particulary egregious for trivial reasons. Work out the average time an infinitely sharp pencil, balanced perfectly upright, will take to fall. Consider a pendulum of length 1 and mass 1. Specify the orientation by the angle, x(t), measured from the position with the bob vertically below the suspension point. The potential energy is

V = g * (1-cosx) = 2g * (sin(x/2))^2

Set the initial conditions

x(0) = 0, x'(0) = 2g

The energy

E = 1/2 (x')^2 + 2g * (sin (x/2))^2
dx/dt = sqrt (4g (1 - (sin (x/2))^2)

Then

              /               1                 \
dt = sqrt(   __________________  )   dx
              \    4g(1-(sin(x/2))^2      /

The integral of dx from x = 0 to x = a diverges as a--> pi.

What does this say about the pencil balanced on its point? About any steady state condition located at a maximum or saddlepoint rather than at a true minimum?

[Little Bang]

Your right Unk, no situation could ever be balanced forever. good point

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

What has happened, what has changed since Eddington's words? I'd like to hear what Einstein would have to say about the new cosmological constant alsmost a century after its introduction. It is already well known what he thought of BB cosmology (the same as Eddington).

Yes, I would like that too. How does that change anything?

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Little Bang

Your right Unk, no situation could ever be balanced forever. good point

Interestingly enough the favored Friedmann model with a critical density expands outwards at a rate that precisely balances the inward force of gravity. That is like a pencil balancing on it head forever. That was the origin of the so-called fine-tuning problem. Fortunately the supernovae Type Ia observations (interpreted as acceleration) show non-linearity, ruling out The critical Friedmann model, and so too the fine-tuning problem. Great, one less thing to worry about. Well, almost. Inflation predicted a one to one expansion ratio, a flat universe with fine-tuning.

There is no fine tuning problem in a non-expanding universe. That's an old myth propagated by disgruntled chemists and the likes. That problem arose 300 years ago with Newtonian mechanics. There is one thing though missing from contemporary physics that should be recognized before the fine-tuning problem disappears for good, regardless of whether the model is based on a stable or unstable background.

I recommend someone start a new thread on the fine-tuning problem of modern cosmology. Here, the topic under severe scrutiny in the thermodynamic connection to cosmological models. Thermodynamics is non-theory based, and as such is perfectly suited to resolve some of the deepest problems of our understanding of physical processes and evolution.

I found another old quote, older than Eddington's. In his Treatise on Thermodynamics (1945), Max Planck put in writing an idea about the second law of thermodynamics and the increase of entropy: “The gist of the second law has nothing to do with experiment; the law asserts briefly that there exists in nature a quantity which always changes in the same way in all natural processes.”

We say that entropy is a time-dependent property because the state of a system cannot change instantaneously. Entropy differences are always positive; it is an additive property, often referred to as the degree of disorder or randomness of a system, but can also be identified with diversity or variety.

The increase of entropy with time clashes with big bang cosmology. Why? Because entropy was supposed to be at its maximum value just after the BB, in the hot expanding fireball.

If you ask me, entropy should decrease when the clocks are reversed, other wise entropy increase is violated in the direction of time.

I'm usually an optimist, but I fail to see how modern cosmology can reconcile empirical thermodynamic issues with the canonical hot big bang cold dark matter kooky energy theory. Maybe I simply have not yet been enlightened. Like my philosophy professor once said “I don’t doubt His existence, but I’m still waiting for His arrival.”

I doubt His existence, and I am not waiting for His arrival.

coldcreation

[questor]

CC, maybe you don't need to wait. maybe He has always been here and maybe many of the things none of us understand will have a true cosmological constant and that constant will be the force that created it all. at that time you can name this force whatever you will, but you will have to admit a transcendent presence. i really can't understand why so many scientists argue against a creative force, when evidence for, far outweighs evidence against. i notice that you frequently use the word create in your dissertations, so i assume
a creation needs a creator?

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by questor

CC, maybe you don't need to wait. maybe He has always been here and maybe many of the things none of us understand will have a true cosmological constant and that constant will be the force that created it all. at that time you can name this force whatever you will, but you will have to admit a transcendent presence. i really can't understand why so many scientists argue against a creative force, when evidence for, far outweighs evidence against. i notice that you frequently use the word create in your dissertations, so i assume
a creation needs a creator?

Questor, the subject of this thread is the relationship between the laws of thermodynamics and cosmology, or cosmology to thermodynamics. Material creation requires no transcendental Superior creative force. You see, in a universe where there is no beginning there is no need for a creator. I do agree though that according to the canonical hot big bang, or a primeval atom hypothesis, call IT what you will, first proposed by the Belgian Catholic priest George Lemaître, there is room for your super force. But because I do not adhere to that concept, by direct implication, I do not either adhere to the Superior (He) Force with or without a beard.

I recommend a different thread. You will not find what you seek here. Why? Gravity is not a super force, electromagnetism is not a superior force, atomic forces are not superior forces, the cosmological constant is certainly not a force, let alone a superior one, general relativity has no superior force at work, quantum mechanics has no superior force, and thermodynamics has to do with the conservation of energy, the increase of entropy with time, and the unattainability of the absolute zero of temperatures on the Kelvin scale, NOT a superior force.

Creation does not need a creator. Imagination and creativity creates a Creator.

good luck.

coldc...