Alternative theories to Big Bang

[Zythryn]

Mike, you claim that the BB is faulty because it breaks the law of conservation of matter, yet you then break the 2nd law of thermodynamics in your own description of the universe.

I still don't understand why you don't see any discrepancy here?

[Mike C]

Mike, you claim that the BB is faulty because it breaks the law of conservation of matter, yet you then break the 2nd law of thermodynamics in your own description of the universe.

I still don't understand why you don't see any discrepancy here?

 

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics deals only with the flow of heat and pressures.

So it ia applicable to the 'interstellar and intergalactic particles and gasses.

 

How can you apply it to the stars and galaxies?

To begin with, these structures have lifespans of billions of years and come in all types of shapes and sizes.

 

The 2nd Law applies to small closed systems like in laboratory spaces.

An experiment was done with 2 closed spaces containing gases at different temperatures connected by a central hole.

Naturally, the gases distributed themselves until they were equal in temperature and pressure.

 

Can you explain how you would apply this 2nd Law to the universe?

 

Mike C

[modest]

Can you explain how you would apply this 2nd Law to the universe?

 

Entropy (of the universe) increases with time.

[Zythryn]

The second law of thermodynamics applies to any closed system. It doesn't matter if it is a big or small closed system.

[Mike C]

Entropy (of the universe) increases with time.

 

Entropy, in this case, defines what?

 

Chaos?

Energy unavailable?

Energy available?

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

The second law of thermodynamics applies to any closed system. It doesn't matter if it is a big or small closed system.

 

OK, so in a closed system, they all tend to move toward equalibrium such as temperature or pressure.

 

It would take billions of years for the stars to approach the intergalactic space tenperatures or pressures as in a vacuum.

This is beyond any calculations.

As stars burn themselves out to approach an equal temperature to the space, new stars are created.

So this is simply an example of compliance to the Conservation Laws.

So the SSU is in a state of equalibrium now.

So in the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics we are already at the 'zeroth' level where their is no further change in TOTAL mass or energy.

The entropy level in a SSU is at zero.

 

Mike C

[Zythryn]

OK, so in a closed system, they all tend to move toward equalibrium such as temperature or pressure.

 

It would take billions of years for the stars to approach the intergalactic space tenperatures or pressures as in a vacuum.

 

Yes it would, time frames that are difficult to grasp for us short lived carbon based beings:)

However, given an infitine amount of time, such as you propose, the entire universe would reach a point of maximum entropy, there would no longer be any star creation.

 

...The entropy level in a SSU is at zero.

 

:doh:Aha, so you agree our universe is NOT a SSU? Since it is obvious entropy is not zero.

[goku]

Besides the Big Bang, what are some other physical theories of how the Universe was created.

 

matter, which can not be created nor distroyed, gained the power to create it's self before it existed. :phones:

 

actually i think the big bang theory fits the bible's (KJV) discription of creation fairly well.

[modest]

Entropy (of the universe) increases with time.

Entropy, in this case, defines what?

 

Chaos?

 

Chaos is the wrong word - we are probably both thinking of disorder. You are correct, disorder will increase (of the entire system / universe) with time. Things will become less ordered. While this is true, it’s also important to know this is not the entire definition of entropy. Disorder is not the only factor that goes into calculating entropy.

 

Energy unavailable?

Energy available?

 

Yes, The energy available to do useful work will decrease as entropy increases as time moves forward.

 

The total energy of a closed system stays the same - it cannot be created or destroyed. This is the first law of thermodynamics or conservation of energy.

 

If our system is a room that is completely sealed shut to the outside world then we can use the first law to predict that the total energy in that room will stay the same - no matter what is in the room or what happens in the room. So long as it doesn’t interact with the outside world - the total energy stays the same.

 

The second law of thermodynamics tells us more about what will happen in the room. Let’s say the room has a glass of ice water (water with ice in it). The second law says that the only spontaneous actions are the ones accompanied by an increase in total entropy. If we know the temperature of the ice, water, and air in the room as well as the quantity of each then we can calculate what will happen spontaneously and what the total increase in entropy is.

 

I will not do the calculations but the results are what we humans intuitively would guess. The ice melts cooling down the water and the water gets warmed by the air until everything is the same temperature. Temperature is not the only aspect of entropy. We can also predict the water will evaporate which we can calculate is a further increase in the room’s total entropy.

 

Of course, as humans we know from instinct what to expect in the room that is sealed shut. But in the language of physics it is described with the laws of thermodynamics numerically and with certainty.

 

If you put a cup of hot coffee and another cup of cold water in a room and seal it shut what do we expect? What will increase the total entropy of the room? Will the hot coffee give all its energy to the cold water making the temperatures switch? We would then have very cold coffee and very hot water. That would not be an increase in the room’s entropy and would not be something we would predict to happen spontaneously. We would expect the coffee and the water to reach an equilibrium where they both end up the same temperature. That would be an increase in the room’s total entropy.

 

These laws are fundamental to the universe. They are so fundamental that they are an arrow of time. How do you know time is moving forwards and not backwards? - because entropy is increasing. If time suddenly switched and the universe found itself moving in reverse how could we tell? Entropy would then decrease. It is that fundamental.

 

I know, Mike C, that you ignore relativity, fusion in stars, quarks, and other things in mainstream science - so I’m sure you will not have trouble ignoring entropy. But, what you describe as our universe is against the laws of entropy. Stars don’t transfer energy between each other endlessly any more than the coffee switches temperature with the cold water. Eventually everything would end up the same temperature. In an infinitely old universe, this should have happened already.

 

-modest

[jackson33]

If an analogy would be helpful Mike,

 

If the universe is like a tub and the CMB is like the water then we can describe entropy like this:

 

The water is cold. We drop in some glowing hot chunks of lead (representing stars). Now we have a tub full of cold water and hot lead chunks. The laws of entropy tell us what will happen next. The second law of thermodynamics says heat will only go from the hotter thing to the colder thing. It will go from the lead to the water. Eventually the lead and water are expected to find an equilibrium where they are both the same temperature. This is the second law and nothing humans have ever accomplished or witnessed has broken the second law.

 

We therefore expect your universe (which is infinitely old) to have found an equilibrium. The dust in space, nebula, planets, stars - everything would be the same temperature. Clearly not the case.

 

Unless you can explain how the lead is always hotter than the water - there's an unanswered problem.

 

-modest

 

Question, more than a comment....The tub of water has a viable conduit for the heat, the water itself. Space not only cannot create energy, as we know it, it cannot hold, maintain or show effects of any energy regardless of frequency levels, flowing through it.

 

All matter, the largest stars to the smallest observable particles, generate there own energy to the levels and make up of there mass. Stars for instance generate every conceivable or known frequency.

 

Space between all objects and location of a potential object for energy absorption, limits effects of any one object on all others. I am not sure any version of SSU infers a closed system and I may have missed an explanation, but a pure guess would say 99.99% of all energy produced passes out of our Universe, untouched, with the remainder having been absorbed (gone) into other matter. The net result then zero or a continuity constant, by formations of new matter.

 

Now, assuming all matter must reflect a temperature and space could have no temperature, where could equilibrium come from. Those tiny measurable particles (CBR) could be generating that 2.2k or 2.7k or 3.2k (think covers all estimates) which should be normal in the last stages of decay or generation of energy.

[Moontanman]

Has anyone taken in to account the real possibility that what we call the universe is really just a small four dimensional sheet or brane in a much bigger universe? Brane theory makes it possible that our universe can be described as a finite four dimensional sheet that exists in a higher dimensional space. What we call the big bang could have just been the collision of two sheets that are gravitationally bound to each other. This can be thought of by imagining two bed sheets hanging on a clothes line. Gravity causes them to approach each other and collide. This collision causes all the matter in each to be turned in to energy on a scale that is very much like the big bang. This release of energy causes the two branes to repel each other and they move apart with all the matter in each one turned to energy. This energy condenses in to matter again and the cycle of star formation begins again. From our point of view the universe is expanding and infinite but from the stand point of these higher spatial dimensions our universe is quite finite. Wrinkles in space time would cause the collision to happen in small areas as the wrinkles collide before the entire sheet does. This would appear on a local level to be big bang like explosions. The expansion issue is an illusion and there is no contradiction. This can occur over and over with no beginning or end. This multidimensional universe could contain an infinite number of universes like our own or a spectrum of universes all quite different. The big bang would be an illusion due to our inability to detect the other universes in the multi verse.

[modest]

Question, more than a comment....The tub of water has a viable conduit for the heat, the water itself.

 

Water is mostly empty space - between atoms that is. A gas is the usual thermodynamic metaphor which is very, very empty. Small atoms with a whole lot of emptiness in between.

 

Also, astronomical bodies have ways of exchanging energy besides bumping into each other. Exchanging energetic particles is sufficient.

 

Space not only cannot create energy, as we know it, it cannot hold, maintain or show effects of any energy regardless of frequency levels, flowing through it.

 

I don't know what you mean. I'm not talking about vacuum energy. I'm saying the temperature of things in space - baryonic matter - will reach equilibrium. Things like interstellar dust, nebula, stars, planets, etc. Those things have a wide range in temp today.

 

All matter, the largest stars to the smallest observable particles, generate there own energy to the levels and make up of there mass. Stars for instance generate every conceivable or known frequency.

 

It is the temperature of matter that will be in equilibrium - not energy. Temperature is the average kinetic energy of the particles of the mass.

 

Space between all objects and location of a potential object for energy absorption, limits effects of any one object on all others.

 

In a system that is infinitely old it is easy to assume any one particular object has had time to interact with another. As this process continues indefinitely you would get infinitely close to equilibrium. In other words, no matter how long it takes to overcome the limitations you describe, that time has come and gone when there's no beginning of the system.

 

I am not sure any version of SSU infers a closed system and I may have missed an explanation, but a pure guess would say 99.99% of all energy produced passes out of our Universe, untouched, with the remainder having been absorbed (gone) into other matter. The net result then zero or a continuity constant, by formations of new matter.

 

Yes, I think that's the idea behind Hoyle's SSU - hence the name. A steady state is achieved by adding matter and expanding space. I am no expert on SS universes but I'm sure the principle is like filling a bath tub (can't seem to get away from that metaphor) with the drain open. This was not Mike C's description however. He did not want his universe to expand - nor do I think he wanted to say matter is continually being formed. That description gives us a very large thermodynamic problem to overcome.

 

Those tiny measurable particles (CBR) could be generating that 2.2k or 2.7k or 3.2k (think covers all estimates) which should be normal in the last stages of decay or generation of energy.

 

It's really not necessary to consider the radiation 'temperature' or space 'temperature' - the entropy objection works regardless. For clarity's sake:

 

Entropy increases with time. If time has been infinite then entropy has reached a maximum. We do not observe a universe with maximum entropy. Therefore time of entropy (and presumably time itself) had a beginning.

 

-modest

[jackson33]

W/O getting deep into 'Brain or String' theory, you could incorporate SSU into those exotic principles, through energy differentials on potential entities. That is, different universe could react and reflect different reactions to energy. Although the potential energy flowing from this universe would add to those theory, IMO, this should not be probable.

 

Oscillation was also part of Hindu Mythology, which is the oldest known explanation of a created universe, dating back to about 2500 BC in text. The basic idea, which many other theory are based on 'The Universe expanded and contracted' an unknown number of times. According to the myth's (a number of them) the current Universe has an age of 12 Billion years or so...

 

As you say, not knowing of other Universe, its hard to explain any of these theory and the conceptions of them were based on principles, other than science as known today...I would agree that this knowledge, at best is primitive to what could be or is, but with an ounce of logic any creation of the total (what ever that is) is much less complicated than that knowledge tries to explain...my opinion.

[jackson33]

modest; Will respond in the morning. Don't want you to think I ignored your response. One thing though, water (H2O) is not the total of what is in that tub...Also you have BP as well, which is not is space...

[Mike C]

Yes it would, time frames that are difficult to grasp for us short lived carbon based beings:)

However, given an infitine amount of time, such as you propose, the entire universe would reach a point of maximum entropy, there would no longer be any star creation.

 

I do not see how you came to that conclusion?

You ignore the Conservation of Energy Law.

You have also terminated the 'force of gravity'. As long as there is matter, there will be gravity.

 

:doh:Aha, so you agree our universe is NOT a SSU? Since it is obvious entropy is not zero.

 

It certainly is a SSU.

The interstellar and intergalactic mediums are now in a very close to zero balance, temperature wise. This can only aproach toward a zero difference,

 

Regarding the total energy in the SSU, I explauned how that is in a state of balance that would constitute a zero energy imbalance.

We know that 'new' stars are being created to radiate new photons to replace the spent photons.

My version of the 'expansion of photons' that leave the universe in an expanded spent state is also a balance to keep an energy balance

differential at zero or very close to zero.

The total matter content does not change according to the Law of Conservation of matter. So the entropy here does not change if it is applicable to matter.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Chaos is the wrong word - we are probably both thinking of disorder. You are correct, disorder will increase (of the entire system / universe) with time. Things will become less ordered. While this is true, it’s also important to know this is not the entire definition of entropy. Disorder is not the only factor that goes into calculating entropy.

 

 

 

Yes, The energy available to do useful work will decrease as entropy increases as time moves forward.

 

The total energy of a closed system stays the same - it cannot be created or destroyed. This is the first law of thermodynamics or conservation of energy.

 

If our system is a room that is completely sealed shut to the outside world then we can use the first law to predict that the total energy in that room will stay the same - no matter what is in the room or what happens in the room. So long as it doesn’t interact with the outside world - the total energy stays the same.

 

The second law of thermodynamics tells us more about what will happen in the room. Let’s say the room has a glass of ice water (water with ice in it). The second law says that the only spontaneous actions are the ones accompanied by an increase in total entropy. If we know the temperature of the ice, water, and air in the room as well as the quantity of each then we can calculate what will happen spontaneously and what the total increase in entropy is.

 

I will not do the calculations but the results are what we humans intuitively would guess. The ice melts cooling down the water and the water gets warmed by the air until everything is the same temperature. Temperature is not the only aspect of entropy. We can also predict the water will evaporate which we can calculate is a further increase in the room’s total entropy.

 

Of course, as humans we know from instinct what to expect in the room that is sealed shut. But in the language of physics it is described with the laws of thermodynamics numerically and with certainty.

 

If you put a cup of hot coffee and another cup of cold water in a room and seal it shut what do we expect? What will increase the total entropy of the room? Will the hot coffee give all its energy to the cold water making the temperatures switch? We would then have very cold coffee and very hot water. That would not be an increase in the room’s entropy and would not be something we would predict to happen spontaneously. We would expect the coffee and the water to reach an equilibrium where they both end up the same temperature. That would be an increase in the room’s total entropy.

 

These laws are fundamental to the universe. They are so fundamental that they are an arrow of time. How do you know time is moving forwards and not backwards? - because entropy is increasing. If time suddenly switched and the universe found itself moving in reverse how could we tell? Entropy would then decrease. It is that fundamental.

 

I know, Mike C, that you ignore relativity, fusion in stars, quarks, and other things in mainstream science - so I’m sure you will not have trouble ignoring entropy. But, what you describe as our universe is against the laws of entropy. Stars don’t transfer energy between each other endlessly any more than the coffee switches temperature with the cold water. Eventually everything would end up the same temperature. In an infinitely old universe, this should have happened already.

 

-modest

 

Will get back to you tomorrow.

 

Mike C

[Zythryn]

I do not see how you came to that conclusion?

 

Ok, let me try to walk through it with you.

 

The second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system, entropy increases over time.

You propose a universe which had no beginning. It follows that if there was no beginning, the universe has been in existence for an infinite amount of time.

If your universe follows the second law of thermodynamics, and it has been around for an infinite amount of time, then it follows that the universe has reached a maximum amount of entropy.

 

I don't see how you can not come to that conclusion unless:

1. You don't believe in the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

2. You don't believe the universe is a closed system.

3. You don't use the same definition of entropy as the rest of the world;)

 

You ignore the Conservation of Energy Law.

I don't believe I did. Can you show me where? Entropy is not the loss of energy. This may be where your misunderstanding is throwing a wrench in the works. Remember, an increase in entropy means a 'loss of energy available to do work'.