|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 24, 2015 9:19:31 GMT 1
Listening to discussion on perpetual motion Frank Close stated, imperturbably, as if it were an irrefutable fact, that energy cannot be created out of nothing Distinguished as he may be, how on earth does he know?
It must mean he knows how the universe was created , don't it?
Also, I thought (obviously I do not know as I am not a physiotherapist or something homophonic)that QM has shown that energy is continually created out of nowt at all
Perplexed of Pontefract
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Sept 24, 2015 23:37:17 GMT 1
Well there's the conundrum. The assumption that energy is conserved does seem to stand up to experimental testing, and if we add the concept of relativistic mass-energy equivalence, the total conservation law seems to apply over a huge range of measurement and apparently a vast volume of the observable universe.
Which makes the concept of "creation" absurd: as far was we can tell, everything was always there.
But on the other hand, we note an inexorable increase in entropy, which implies not only an asymptotic decline in "useful" energy, but either an infintely old universe or one that began with zero entropy (a big bang).
Now the phrase "entropy is time's arrow" takes on a greater significance. We can only measure time if there is an increase in entropy. So if we look backwards, the notion of time somehow shrinks towards an asymptote as the amount of entropy in the universe decreases. So there is no actual difference between an infinitely old universe and a big bang - it's just easier to model such things as the CMBR with a bang.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Oct 15, 2015 8:15:44 GMT 1
Not from nowt at all, it is created from the vacuum of space, and space is not the same as nowt at all.
Let's just drop the idea of entropy, it is only a human concept, useful in some contexts, but not a necessary feature of reality.
Time is real, without it no events could happen (or all events would happen all at once!). The Universe was different in the past, it had less space in it and was more dense.
We know that there is something rather than nothing. Conceivably the Universe came into existence by chance, rather as the sub-atomic particles in space appear by chance.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 15, 2015 9:58:51 GMT 1
Not from nowt at all, it is created from the vacuum of space, and space is not the same as nowt at all. Pray tell, what is the difference between 'the vacuum of space' and 'nowt at all'? How is the differnce measured? Let's just drop the idea of entropy, it is only a human concept, useful in some contexts, but not a necessary feature of reality. [/quote] Can you give us an example of a concept that is not a human concept? As opposed t a 'human concept'? We know that there is something rather than nothing. But there are surely both? Conceivably the Universe came into existence by chance, rather as the sub-atomic particles in space appear by chance. Many things are 'coceivable'
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Oct 16, 2015 8:20:14 GMT 1
The vacuum of space has space ie a volume, the size of which can be measured, for example seeing how long it takes for light to go across it. Consider a Universe where there are no objects, only space. That Universe still exists and is not "nowt at all". For "nowt at all" push your 2 index fingers together and consider what is between them.
A bird concept.
Not "as opposed to" a human concept. There are certain human concepts, such as pink unicorns, that do not represent actuality, ie they are not real. There are certain human concepts ie time, which are our reflections of reality.
To the question, "Is there nothing in the Universe?" my answer would be "No, there is something".
No, many things are conceivable.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 16, 2015 13:52:55 GMT 1
The vacuum of space has space ie a volume, the size of which can be measured, for example seeing how long it takes for light to go across it. Consider a Universe where there are no objects, only space. That Universe still exists But 'nowt at all' also exists! A bird concept. But concepts are an exclusively human condition whether based on 'reality' or not To the question, "Is there nothing in the Universe?" my answer would be "No, there is something". But there larger areas of 'nothing' than there are of something, so both must exist No, many things are conceivable. Ah! smart-arse pedantry I see
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Oct 17, 2015 9:54:49 GMT 1
I take it we are discussing whether energy can be created out of nothing, which leads to the whole question of how the whole Universe can have come into being. I didn't want to get into the philosophical meaning of "nothing".
You say that "'nowt at all' also exists!". What does that mean? If we say "nothing exists" then we are simply saying that there is no thing in existence. So how can it be said "But there larger areas of 'nothing' than there are of something, so both must exist". Where are these larger areas of "nothing"? What size are these areas, and how would you measure them? The Universe could be infinite in extent ie no place where there is absolutely nothing.
Thank you for confirming that I am correct.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Nov 16, 2015 5:25:55 GMT 1
Not from nowt at all, it is created from the vacuum of space, and space is not the same as nowt at all. The QM hypothesis that energy is created out of quantum field fluctuations ("virtual particles" should statistically become actual, strictly speaking) does not refer to the "vacuum" of space. That's another sense of "vacuum" altogether. Those fluctuations hypothetically occur in the supposed six. seven, or eight (depending on the particular field theory) enfolded extra dimensions within the field. Those dimensions supposedly have a spatio-temporal extension, as far as my understanding goes, but only insomuch as they intersect with space-time up to the Planck distance - to speak of their internal spatial dimension is otherwise meaningless. Or, rather, perhaps, if you're inclined to think in such a self-defeating, or - more usually - self-serving manner, it's a mathematical construct, like a dimensionless point, that if we attempt to consider as "real" is beyond our powers of comprehension. In other words, it's as "nowt at all" as you can possibly get. Circular reasoning. The current orthodoxy is that space is flat and infinite in extent - i.e. macroscopically Euclidean. The idea that space itself expands can have no currency in such a revised model - it's literally senseless, even as a mathematical construct. An infinite extension can have no boundary. But going back to the old model, that the expansion of the universe - red-shifted galaxies etc. - is a consequence of space stretching like an inflating baloon (a favourite metaphor you still hear spouted today on popular science shows) then that throws up another sort of "nowt at all", equally as incomprehensible. What is space expanding into? It's an unverified hypothesis (and it seems to me an unverifiable one, in principle, like Alan's traditional dystopian "time's arrow"gobbledygook), not an observed fact. What scientists used to call meaningless metaphysics, in the old days when Physics was physics.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Nov 17, 2015 10:58:46 GMT 1
If you believe time is not real, tell me what it means to say "the speed of light is constant". What does "speed" mean?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Nov 17, 2015 12:02:07 GMT 1
I do believe time is real. I was merely pointing out that your argument was the equivalent of using the defiendum in your definiens. That is, your meaning of "time" is already in your meaning of "event" - of course therefore you can't have events without time. All you've said is you can't have events without events, or you can't have time without time. But don't fret - coming up with an argument for the existence of time is notoriously intractable. The so far empirically well-founded existence of c is probably as good as it's ever going to get - you merely have to find a way to translate it into a dimensionless constant, or you have the same definitional circularity. I refer you to Einstein's famous equation.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Nov 18, 2015 9:07:33 GMT 1
The observation that the galaxies are moving apart from each other is believed to be due to space expanding in between them. Space cannot be called "nowt" if it means that it increases the distance between huge objects.
There isn't anything there, therefore there is nothing to prevent it expanding.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Nov 18, 2015 14:05:58 GMT 1
There isn't anything there, therefore there is nothing to prevent it expanding. And what exactly is the boundary between 'nothing' and 'space' No don't bother answering - you do not have a clue what you are speaking about
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Nov 18, 2015 22:32:52 GMT 1
I don't think you have a clue. You seem to think of "nothing" as some kind of thing that has an existence. Hence you state that there must "large areas of nothing" and some idea that "nothing" can have a boundary. But by nothing all that is meant is no thing; it means that there isn't anything there (in the place we are referring to) at all. No boundary, no area NO THING.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Nov 19, 2015 9:31:56 GMT 1
I don't think you have a clue. You seem to think of "nothing" as some kind of thing that has an existence. Hence you state that there must "large areas of nothing" and some idea that "nothing" can have a boundary. But by nothing all that is meant is no thing; it means that there isn't anything there (in the place we are referring to) at all. No boundary, no area NO THING. Like everyone I have ever met you simply do not understand what you are talking about on this subject. I most certainly don't For example you have already stated that space has a boundary and that boundary must be to nothing, then criticise me for stating that there is a boundary! Make up your mind or admit you are clueless like everyone else
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Nov 19, 2015 17:13:57 GMT 1
"For example you have already stated that space has a boundary " Please show where I said that.
|
|