Physics Help Forum Thermodynamics vs. God?

 Philosophy of Physics Philosophy of Physics Forum - Philosophical questions about our universe

Jul 27th 2009, 09:24 PM   #11
Physics Team

Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 310
 the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.
 the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated
Those dictionary definitions disagree with your statement. So I guess the universe
is not a definitive thing either.

 If we look at the analogy of the set of natural numbers, it is infinite but there are still infinitely many other numbers that exist.
The universe isn't really like that. We know the boundaries of a number, or a parameter
of a number (i.e. its value) However, we don't know the boundaries or parameters
of our universe.
__________________
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." - Thomas Jefferson.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws." -Mayer Amschel Rothschild

I study Mathematical Physics at the
University of Waterloo.

-DC

 Jul 27th 2009, 09:57 PM #12 Senior Member   Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Singapore Posts: 206 I think it is most important to define what you mean by God. If you mean as the God of the Bible then it says in the Bible that He is infinite and cannot be understood by finite men. The universe we observe today is a series of sceond causes. If He is the Creator, then he energized the universe and would be the ultimate First Cause, no violation of the laws of thermodynamics here because He is outside of natural laws. He exists as a spirit and not as matter or energy. That's impossible to propose in a totally naturalistic worldview, but i see no reason why there cannot be the supernatural, especially having experienced it myself.
Jul 27th 2009, 09:57 PM   #13
Senior Member

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 815
 Originally Posted by Deco Those dictionary definitions disagree with your statement. So I guess the universe is not a definitive thing either.
I quote wikipedia :
 The Universe is defined as everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them. However, the term Universe may be used in slightly different contextual senses, denoting such concepts as the cosmos, the world or Nature.
Please point me out where "my" definition goes against the one you gave from a dictionary. I don't see how it differs.

 The universe isn't really like that. We know the boundaries of a number, or a parameter of a number (i.e. its value) However, we don't know the boundaries or parameters of our universe.
Of course the universe is not a set of numbers or elements that we can distinguish. My point was to notice that if the Universe was infinite, it would not imply that nothing could exist outside it. The reason why nothing could exist outside it is that with such a definition of Universe, if something exists then it is part of the Universe. So if we suppose that something exist outside the Universe, we're in fact supposing that a part of the Universe is outside the Universe, a contradiction.
__________________
Isaac
If the problem is too hard just let the Universe solve it.

Jul 27th 2009, 10:03 PM   #14
Physics Team

Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 310
 The Universe is defined as everything that physically exists
is not necessarily the same, for example, as

 the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.
...

 My point was to notice that if the Universe was infinite, it would not imply that nothing could exist outside it.
Yes it would.

Arze. If God is the creator, who created him? If he didn't need to be created why not save a step and say the universe didn't need
to be created.
__________________
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." - Thomas Jefferson.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws." -Mayer Amschel Rothschild

I study Mathematical Physics at the
University of Waterloo.

-DC

Last edited by Deco; Jul 27th 2009 at 10:06 PM.

Jul 27th 2009, 10:18 PM   #15
Senior Member

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 815
 Originally Posted by Deco is not necessarily the same, for example, as ...
For me it's the same, I don't see any difference.

 Originally Posted by Deco Yes it would.
Ok. Here we have different points of view. That's good after all, if we had all the same point of view we wouldn't be debating and thinking.

I won't post here anymore because I believe I've said all I think in my previous posts. So you can find the answer to your original question according to my viewpoint.
__________________
Isaac
If the problem is too hard just let the Universe solve it.

Jul 28th 2009, 01:42 PM   #16
Physics Team

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,573
 Originally Posted by Deco According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So $\displaystyle E_{universe} = C$; where $\displaystyle C$ is constant.
The second law relates the internal energy of a thermodynamic system to the heat added to the system and the work done on the system and is consistent with the law of conservation of energy. The law of conservation of energy is a seperate law.
 Originally Posted by Deco This implies that our universe always had the same amount of energy stored within it, as a system. This could even prelude the Big Bang.
The conservation of energy only applies to the laws of physics as we know them and since we can't say what happened within a certain time after the creation of the universe all we can say is that the law of conservation of energy started sometime after the universe was created. It's also not known to what extent this law holds either. It is currently not known how the the energy of a gravitational field is precisely defined either.
 Originally Posted by Deco Question: Do you think this conflicts with a concept of a creator? If not, why?
I don't see any relationship between the two.

I should also point out that since gravitational energy can be negative then its possible that the total energy of the universe is zero. In fact the absolute value of the energy of a system has no physical meaning. Only changes/differences in energy have physical meaning.

Regarding whether something could exist outside an infinite universe - its quite concievable. In fact this has been postulated. Ever hear of the mutiple universe theory? An infinite universe refers to space of infinite extent. But according to general relativity its possible to have two spatially infinite universes which are spatially disconnected. You can visualize this from a perspective of 2-dimensional beings. A 2-d universe can be pictured as a the infinitely large xy-plane. A spatially disconnected infinite universe would be another such plane. A being of higher dimension might view these planes as being parallel in his 3-d unviverse. One 2-d universe existing at z = 0 while the other 2-universe existing at z = 1.

If you're really interested in this subject you can find a complete discussion about it in the book The Mind of God by Paul Davies who's an astrophysicist. You can read some of his stuff on multiverses (which includes multiple universes) at http://cosmos.asu.edu/

Last edited by Pmb; Jul 28th 2009 at 01:50 PM.

Jul 28th 2009, 01:50 PM   #17
Physics Team

Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 310
 The conservation of energy only applies to the laws of physics as we know them and since we can't say what happened within a certain time after the creation of the universe all we can say is that the law of conservation of energy started sometime after the universe was created.
I don't think anyone can make that claim with certainty.

The real world allows for great fluctuations of energy, but within time intervals
so small that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle "takes over". Maybe this
is what you were suggesting.
__________________
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." - Thomas Jefferson.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws." -Mayer Amschel Rothschild

I study Mathematical Physics at the
University of Waterloo.

-DC

Last edited by Deco; Jul 28th 2009 at 01:52 PM.

Jul 28th 2009, 01:54 PM   #18
Physics Team

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,573
 Originally Posted by Deco I don't think anyone can make that claim with certainty.
We most certainly can. But I think you missed my point, i.e. as it stands right now, nobody knows anything before that time.

Jul 28th 2009, 01:55 PM   #19
Physics Team

Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 310
 The real world allows for great fluctuations of energy, but within time intervals so small that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle "takes over". Maybe this is what you were suggesting.
I don't think you saw my edit I made.
__________________
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." - Thomas Jefferson.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws." -Mayer Amschel Rothschild

I study Mathematical Physics at the
University of Waterloo.

-DC

Jul 28th 2009, 02:00 PM   #20
Physics Team

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,573
 Originally Posted by Deco The real world allows for great fluctuations of energy, but within time intervals so small that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle "takes over".
That is incorrect. In fact that is a common misconception based on a misunderstanding of the time-energy uncertainty principle
 Originally Posted by Deco Maybe this is what you were suggesting.
Nope.

 Tags god, thermodynamics

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Physics Forum Discussions Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post ariana Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics 0 Oct 1st 2014 03:29 PM abcde Advanced Thermodynamics 2 Sep 12th 2014 03:43 PM KAJ0989 Advanced Thermodynamics 1 Dec 24th 2012 08:44 PM CNM DESIGN Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics 0 Aug 22nd 2010 05:35 PM AJEY Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics 1 Dec 15th 2009 11:12 PM