Could energy have always existed under the laws of thermodynamics?

[yppop]

What if the concept of entropy can be legitimately generalized, so that it applies to information as well as to thermodynamics?.

Come on GL, I never figure you for the coy type; why the question. I suggested many moons ago that you should look into the theory of informational entropy. Surely you have found Claude Shannon’s theories by now?

… Reversing the normal flow of informational entropy also requires time (and therefore power) which I’d prefer to spend on CAF.

You’d be better off spending your time on Shannon. I took another look at your web site and I don’t see an awful lot of progress in the last year. I would hope that your book is an additional effort outside of your web site. Why haven’t you ever made your web site available to this forum instead of alluding to your theory on numerous posts? I am sure there are those on this forum that would love to read it.

You challenge me and I responded, now I am challenging you.

Your friend in laughter.

Yppop

 

[Touchstone]

I’ve just thought of an example in which entropy change is purely a change in order–no heat or energy transfer. Consider an ideal gas (like Helium)…if it expands reversibly at constant temperature there’s no change in the internal energy of the gas. Now connect a very strong balloon through a valve to a tank of helium a fairly low pressure (2 atm gauge say) and open up the valve a little and let the helium expand the balloon until pressure (which will be less than the original 2 atm) stabilizes. The entropy of the helium will have increase (its disorder increases because of the larger volume available to the helium atoms) and no energy will have been transferred to the helium (ideally).

S increases with volume, all other factors being equal. So that’s not controversial, this is configurational entropy vs. thermal entropy. Your example does not exhibit a change in thermal entropy, but does show a change in configurational entropy.

I guess your point then hangs on the word ‘order’. As you are probably aware, scientists, their journals and textbooks are moving away from “order” and “disorder” to less problematic and overloaded terms like “dispersion”. As happens often in science, the technical meaning of the word is nearly opposite to the casual one. For example, a prof many years ago taught me that “equilibrium” is “perfect disorder” on an internal basis, which is quite counterintuitive to what we colloquially mean by ‘disorder’ – hey it’s evenly dispersed and at equilibrium, right? How much more ordered can it get?

Here’s what gets to the crux of the term ‘order’ in your usage though. In your tank, we have perfect order and the lowest possible entry when all the helium molecules are in the same place. Maximal order, minimal entropy.

Conversely, as the gas approaches maximal entropy, that is equilibrium in a uniform dispersion of molecules throughout the available space of the tank, the order decreases. Maximal entropy, minimal order.

If we apply that to State 1 (before the addition of the 2atm helium), and compare that to State 2 (after addition), I think it’s clear that there is no change in the order/disorder of the system. Entropy is only meaningful as a state variable for the system when it’s at thermodynamic equilibrium, and since we are talking about an ideal gas in equilibrium here in both cases, you have, by definition, maximal statistical disorder in both cases.

(Entropy is not disorder. It is not a measure of disorder. )

Oh, and I’m not sure your example of the messy room hits the mark. The messy room is a macroscopically different state than the orderly one, but the heat you get is the heat from burning individual items of clothing. If you counted the work required to put the room back into order (a mother’s sweat), then entropy changes probably would balance out with a greater entropy change (total) for burning the messy room items,.

Perhaps, and I salute the clear thinking about real entropy here, but my thinking is that we can just as easily say that the energy the kid expended in messing up the room was greater than Mom’s energy in restoring it to “neat and clean”. Anyone with a kid (I have six!) will note that making a mess is way easier than cleaning up, but kids burn so much more energy in doing anything, that even given the advantage of “messing vs. cleaning”, I’d say they burn more calories!

That’s neither here nor there, though, but I hear ya. The “shuffled deck of cars has higher entropy than the new deck, sorted, just-outta-the box” meme is what I’m ware of here.

And I can think of thermodynamic systems at different entropies which will give the same amount of heat when reaction occurs:1) 2n moles of H2 and n moles of O2, H2 at 2/3 atm partial pressure and the O2 at 1/3 atm partial pressure and temperature at 0 C; 2) 2n moles of H2 and n moles of O2H2 at 1/3 atm partial pressure and O2 at 1/6 atm, temp at 0 C. Systems 1 and 2 will both give off the same amount of heat when reacted to form liquid water even though the entropy of system 2 is greater than that of system 1. The reason: if you think of H2 and O2 as ideal gases no work/energy was required to expand them from 1) to 2)… I hope this hasn’t totally confused the point you were talking about, with which I agree. 2nd law arguments about evolution brought forth by Young Earth Creationists are fallacious.

I wasn’t really bothering with creationist blunders here. I’m continually surprised by how many scientists try to tell me the randomized card deck or the messy room has higher entropy, or is thermodynamically more disordered.

Anyway, it’s a pleasure to talk about real, natural topics here for a bit. Thanks!

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

just thought of something why this example may not be appropriate (should have got it sooner, but at 80, the brain cells work more slowly).

Wow. All I can say is, I should be so fortunate to post things like this when I’m 80. Salute. So may it be. That’s very cool.

delta S = Q/T is the second law for REVERSIBLE changes…which combustion isn’t. The other part of the second law is
delta S > Q/T for irreversible changes which combustion is. For example if you drop hot water onto ice in a thermos (thermally insulate) the entropy change for the combined system, ice+water, will be greater than 0, even if no heat gets into the thermos. And you’re correct in saying thermodynamic disorder may not be the same as what the hoi polloi think of as disorder and order.
So somewhere in the “>” sign is the increase in entropy in going from neat to messy,
that is to say: delta S for neat to burnt = delta S for neat to messy + delta S for messy to burnt, even though Q neat to burnt = Q messy to burnt.

Yep. Tracking.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Who better for it to come from than me?

Everything you’ve written is correct, at least to the best of my knowledge.

My personal theories about the beginnings of things and their ongoing nature has extended a few physics notions into areas beyond their original intent. It will be a while before the returns are in on this approach, but in the meantime, consider this…

What if the concept of entropy can be legitimately generalized, so that it applies to information as well as to thermodynamics?

That’s a very tricky and subtle question. I am not a physicist or a scientist. I am, however, expert in information theory (Shannon/Kolmogorov/Chaitin/Solomonoff, etc.). I have a particular interest in the nexus of both thermodynamic entropy and information entropy, which of course come together in the greatest thought experiment of all time, Maxwell’s Demon. Landauer, Brouillon, Szilard et al… good stuff!

Anyway, I’m quite familiar with a lot of clumsy attempts to confuse and conflate thermodynamics with information theory, but at the same time aware of this really profound linkage, the fact of the thermal cost of irreversible information loss. Shannon’s twist on Boltzmann and Gibbs is as likely to mislead as inform, I think. Really, Shannon was unwise to take Neumann’s advice and adopt the term “entropy”. No end of confusion, and confidence in one’s mistakes, has come of it.

But, just to be a bit provocative, I will just say: information is physical. Physical is information. Landauer is right, nailed it. So that’s agreement, but in a much more materialist and direct sense than I suspect your are thinking about. Shannon information is just kind of crude, retail repackaging, mixed with some key differences that many miss, but the generalization you wonder about has been pretty well explored, and I think well established at this point. It’s the governing paradigm in physics. When I want to destroy a bit of information, irreversibly annihilate it as that info from my hard drive, I must expend *KTln2 *joules to do it.

Reconciling information and thermodynamics as per Landauer is what slaid Maxwell’s Demon, and banished the Perpetual Motion Motion to permanent mythic, crackpot dream.

The messy room then becomes an example of high entropy, and the ordered room an example of low entropy.

Right. And it’s easy to see that this example has some immediate benefit as pedagogy. How else should I explain to my gradeschooler how this works? Well, I now think this example should never be used, because a great many NEVER get past the analogy, and think that it describes actual entropy. It doesn’t, at all. It’s supposed to be a stepping stone to actual knowledge about entropy, but from experience, it’s more an impediment than an aid. It’s too good as pedagogy, one might say.

There is also a thermodynamic relationship, as one who lives without a keeper knows. I only hang up laundered clothes or put them into drawers twice annually because extra energy is required to do so, and I have more important things to use my remaining ergs for, like cutting firewood. Reversing the normal flow of informational entropy also requires time (and therefore power) which I’d prefer to spend on CAF.

Right, and here again, we are talking in terms of real entropy, and that’s great. But we have to thwart the “messy room” example, and keep vigilant to not think about “mess” and “neat” to understand it. This example works against us, though you’ve no trouble in dealing with that.

Back to your messy room— if the energy expended to sort the clothes is counted, and if compared to the lesser amount of energy needed to throw them on a handy pile, then added to the energy released by burning the rooms, it will be greater.

Right. A happy lack of controversy on this subject. You’d be surprised how many times this topic erupts into “whaddy mean a messy room isn’t higher entropy???”, focusing on the mess, the possible “states of the room”, rather than the thermodynamics.

-TS

 

[Anselm33]

That’s a very tricky and subtle question. I am not a physicist or a scientist. I am, however, expert in information theory (Shannon/Kolmogorov/Chaitin/Solomonoff, etc.). I have a particular interest in the nexus of both thermodynamic entropy and information entropy, which of course come together in the greatest thought experiment of all time, Maxwell’s Demon. Landauer, Brouillon, Szilard et al… good stuff!

Anyway, I’m quite familiar with a lot of clumsy attempts to confuse and conflate thermodynamics with information theory, but at the same time aware of this really profound linkage, the fact of the thermal cost of irreversible information loss. Shannon’s twist on Boltzmann and Gibbs is as likely to mislead as inform, I think. Really, Shannon was unwise to take Neumann’s advice and adopt the term “entropy”. No end of confusion, and confidence in one’s mistakes, has come of it.

But, just to be a bit provocative, I will just say: information is physical. Physical is information. Landauer is right, nailed it. So that’s agreement, but in a much more materialist and direct sense than I suspect your are thinking about. Shannon information is just kind of crude, retail repackaging, mixed with some key differences that many miss, but the generalization you wonder about has been pretty well explored, and I think well established at this point. It’s the governing paradigm in physics. When I want to destroy a bit of information, irreversibly annihilate it as that info from my hard drive, I must expend *KTln2 *joules to do it.

Reconciling information and thermodynamics as per Landauer is what slaid Maxwell’s Demon, and banished the Perpetual Motion Motion to permanent mythic, crackpot dream.

-TS

Interesting stuff. Are there web sites that talk about this (there’s on paper by Chaitin I’ve read, but not on what you’re talking about)? Or should I Google?
And here may be an example that relates thermodynamic entropy to informational entropy, Gibbs’ Paradox of Mixing. You have a box divided by a removable partition into two equal volumes. On one side of the box you have, say, Helium; on the other Argon. The gases are at the same temperature and pressure. You remove the the partition and there is an entropy change, delta S = n R ln 2 (where you have n moles of each gas).
now as the Almighty you do the experiment again and gradually change the nature of the gas on the left until you finally convert the Helium to Argon. You now lift the partition again, and lo, delta S=0 There’s an obvious difference in the change of information for the two cases. Of interest is the interpretation given by Lande (and I can’t find a reference–pre web) in which he interprets this as a quantum mechanical phenomenon and a basis for quantum mechanics.

 

[Anselm33]

That’s a very tricky and subtle question. I am not a physicist or a scientist. I am, however, expert in information theory (Shannon/Kolmogorov/Chaitin/Solomonoff, etc.). I have a particular interest in the nexus of both thermodynamic entropy and information entropy, which of course come together in the greatest thought experiment of all time, Maxwell’s Demon. Landauer, Brouillon, Szilard et al… good stuff!

Anyway, I’m quite familiar with a lot of clumsy attempts to confuse and conflate thermodynamics with information theory, but at the same time aware of this really profound linkage, the fact of the thermal cost of irreversible information loss. Shannon’s twist on Boltzmann and Gibbs is as likely to mislead as inform, I think. Really, Shannon was unwise to take Neumann’s advice and adopt the term “entropy”. No end of confusion, and confidence in one’s mistakes, has come of it.

But, just to be a bit provocative, I will just say: information is physical. Physical is information. Landauer is right, nailed it. So that’s agreement, but in a much more materialist and direct sense than I suspect your are thinking about. Shannon information is just kind of crude, retail repackaging, mixed with some key differences that many miss, but the generalization you wonder about has been pretty well explored, and I think well established at this point. It’s the governing paradigm in physics. When I want to destroy a bit of information, irreversibly annihilate it as that info from my hard drive, I must expend *KTln2 *joules to do it.

Reconciling information and thermodynamics as per Landauer is what slaid Maxwell’s Demon, and banished the Perpetual Motion Motion to permanent mythic, crackpot dream.

Right. And it’s easy to see that this example has some immediate benefit as pedagogy. How else should I explain to my gradeschooler how this works? Well, I now think this example should never be used, because a great many NEVER get past the analogy, and think that it describes actual entropy. It doesn’t, at all. It’s supposed to be a stepping stone to actual knowledge about entropy, but from experience, it’s more an impediment than an aid. It’s too good as pedagogy, one might say.

Right, and here again, we are talking in terms of real entropy, and that’s great. But we have to thwart the “messy room” example, and keep vigilant to not think about “mess” and “neat” to understand it. This example works against us, though you’ve no trouble in dealing with that.

Right. A happy lack of controversy on this subject. You’d be surprised how many times this topic erupts into “whaddy mean a messy room isn’t higher entropy???”, focusing on the mess, the possible “states of the room”, rather than the thermodynamics.

-TS

I’ve just posted a new thread " ‘It from bits’ --the Universe is computable" and would appreciate comments.

 

[Touchstone]

Interesting stuff. Are there web sites that talk about this (there’s on paper by Chaitin I’ve read, but not on what you’re talking about)? Or should I Google?
And here may be an example that relates thermodynamic entropy to informational entropy, Gibbs’ Paradox of Mixing. You have a box divided by a removable partition into two equal volumes. On one side of the box you have, say, Helium; on the other Argon. The gases are at the same temperature and pressure. You remove the the partition and there is an entropy change, delta S = n R ln 2 (where you have n moles of each gas).
now as the Almighty you do the experiment again and gradually change the nature of the gas on the left until you finally convert the Helium to Argon. You now lift the partition again, and lo, delta S=0 There’s an obvious difference in the change of information for the two cases. Of interest is the interpretation given by Lande (and I can’t find a reference–pre web) in which he interprets this as a quantum mechanical phenomenon and a basis for quantum mechanics.

Well, the “mother lode” on this topic probably more scientific than computing-centric – these books:

*]Maxwell’s Demon: Entropy, Information, Computing *

[Maxwell’s Demon 2: Entropy, Classical and Quantum Information, Computing](Maxwell’s Demon 2: Entropy, Classical and Quantum Information, Computing)

An excellent compendium. Here’s a decent companion to that that you can read online (or most of it, I think):

Aspects of Kolmogorov Complexity the Physics of Information By Bradley S. Tice

Here’s a page I’ve used to bring others up to speed before that’s worthwhile as something more brief and light:

lcni.uoregon.edu/~mark/Stat_mech/thermodynamic_entropy_and_information.html

You kind of threw me for a loop there with the “Now as the Almighty”. That makes working the physics either really, really hard, or really really easy, but I can’t tell which!

-TS

 

[Anselm33]

You kind of threw me for a loop there with the “Now as the Almighty”. That makes working the physics either really, really hard, or really really easy, but I can’t tell which!

-TS

It was my way of posing a gedanken experiment. Since I posted that comment I’ve done a Google search. The Gibbs Paradox is now explained (by Lande and others) using quantum mechanics–here’s the most relevant web site:
books.google.com/books?id=dcCpdY_Y2CEC&pg=PA239&lpg=PA239&dq=Lande+%22Gibbs+Paradox%22&source=bl&ots=7yMXSVYZRw&sig=4RjXc5Zd8F5P7PtTM8Truro2wK4&hl=en&ei=_8i4TPmXFoP7lwfondCNDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Lande%20%22Gibbs%20Paradox%22&f=false
that is, unfortunately, an extremely long URL…if you do a Google search using the search terms “Lande” “Gibbs paradox” you’ll see a Google book site.for “Treatise on Irreversible and Statistical Thermodynamics” by Yourgrau et al. that is the above URL.

I’ve seen on other sites that there does seem to be a connection with the solution of the Gibbs paradox and information theory, but I didn’t understand the math

and thanks again for the book references; I’ll have to see if they’re at the Bucknell Library. If not, I’ll have to wait awhile …the book budget for October and November has been used up.

 

[Andy_III]

Andy, just to clear up one point of possible confusion–entropy isn’t a form of energy. Entropy measures disorder. Energy will flow spontaneously from systems at a high temperature (greater disorder) to systems at lower temperature (lower disorder) with a corresponding increase in the total entropy of the combined systems. You can’t get energy to go spontaneously from a high temperature to a lower temperature (as in a refrigerator) without doing work on the two systems from the outside. If the universe is finite (which I believe) and doesn’t expand to infinity, then eventually temperatures will equalize, black holes will swallow up all matter and the total entropy will get to its maximum value.

That is what I was saying. Perhaps if I had said “energy with a maximal entropy value” it would have made more sense?

 

[Andy_III]

Incidentally, I do not know of processes which cause subatomic particles to spontaneously disintegrate. Although aware of the claim from speculative physicists on TV that everything will come apart as dark energy expands the universe, I’m not aware of the mechanisms by which this will happen.

I was wondering about that myself. But then, what are the smallest sub-atomic particles? I doubt we’ve found the smallest yet. This is another reason that I think the laws of thermodynamics are not quite finished yet.

I know that energy has existed as long as it has existed, and that it works just the way energy works. I believe energy has existed for a finite time, and that there is a finite quantity of it. The size of the universe I’m agnostic (i.e., ignorant) on. I also realize that all of these facts be they true, false, or partly true are of secondary importance. But they are fun to think about sometimes.

 

[Andy_III]

The intent is to talk just about thermodynamic entropy. Does anyone have a succint description of what an entire closed system at maximal entropy would “look” like? I think of it as a homogeneous distribution of energy. What form the energy would have is what I cannot articulate. I think it is enough to say that it is in a state where no energy is available to do work. It would be nice to have a better word picture.

 

[Touchstone]

The intent is to talk just about thermodynamic entropy. Does anyone have a succint description of what an entire closed system at maximal entropy would “look” like? I think of it as a homogeneous distribution of energy.

Cold, empty space, and lots and lots of it. At the rate the universe is expanding – at the rate the universe’s expanision is accelerating – the picture is clear: cold, empty space, with very little matter as a percentage of volume.

What form the energy would have is what I cannot articulate.

Maximal entropy can only be approached asymptotically. But, as above, highly dispersed, very, very cold matter. Also, because gravity obtains, in some locations,

I think it is enough to say that it is in a state where no energy is available to do work. It would be nice to have a better word picture.

Matter and energy are conserved, so all increasing entropy will do is drive dispersal in an expanding universe (expansion necessarily creates more phase space for dispersal of any given energy, and thus increases entropy). This universe will just keeping expanding and getting colder, the energy in it becoming ever more diffuse.

-TS

 

[Andy_III]

Matter and energy are conserved, so all increasing entropy will do is drive dispersal in an expanding universe (expansion necessarily creates more phase space for dispersal of any given energy, and thus increases entropy). This universe will just keeping expanding and getting colder, the energy in it becoming ever more diffuse.

Thank you Touchstone. So you are saying that what energy there is will be spaced out more and more. Therefore in the limit, the universe would be infinite in size and contain no energy. Neither of course would be possible in reality. I think we have quite clearly answered that our universe (by the fact of our own existence) cannot be a single closed system that has always had energy operating under the laws of thermodynamics.

So this leaves three avenues we’ve mentioned that have not yet led to a contradiction:

1. 
   *]Energy has not always existed.
   *]The universe is not a closed system (at least it has not always been one).
   *]Energy has not always followed the laws of thermodynamics (or the laws incompletly describe energy).
   
   It is interesting (at least to me) to note that none of these three contradict the teachings of the Church.
   
   If energy has not always existed, God could have created it.
   
   If the universe has not always been closed, God could have moved some energy/matter into the universe. (Hmm, like Greylorn’s bomb example, except the fragments are galaxies)
   
   If energy has not always followed man’s current laws of thermodynamics, we could say anything could happen anytime and not be able to disprove it.

 

[Anselm33]

Thank you Touchstone. So you are saying that what energy there is will be spaced out more and more. Therefore in the limit, the universe would be infinite in size and contain no energy. Neither of course would be possible in reality. I think we have quite clearly answered that our universe (by the fact of our own existence) cannot be a single closed system that has always had energy operating under the laws of thermodynamics.

So this leaves three avenues we’ve mentioned that have not yet led to a contradiction:

1. 
   *]Energy has not always existed.
   *]The universe is not a closed system (at least it has not always been one).
   *]Energy has not always followed the laws of thermodynamics (or the laws incompletly describe energy).
   
   It is interesting (at least to me) to note that none of these three contradict the teachings of the Church.
   
   If energy has not always existed, God could have created it.
   
   If the universe has not always been closed, God could have moved some energy/matter into the universe. (Hmm, like Greylorn’s bomb example, except the fragments are galaxies)
   
   If energy has not always followed man’s current laws of thermodynamics, we could say anything could happen anytime and not be able to disprove it.

1. 
   Let me bring up one point that’s relevant here to the eternity of energy. Supposedly the net energy in the Universe is 0: negative gravitational energy (in magnitude)= positive mass energy + positive radiation and thermal energy, so sum is 0. But if you look more deeply, “energy” is part of what we know as “laws” of science; like mass, charge, etc., It really wasn’t used as an entity until the 18th century. Energy is simply a variable used to help us describe, in mathematical terms, what we can understand of the universe around us. To think of “energy” as a thing is, I believe, mistaken. It’s a construct, not real in the same sense that. say, the integers are real.
   
   The conservation of energy is related in a deeper sense to the time invariance of the (excuse the technical jargon) the Hamiltonian describing the universe. If God would mess with the universe, injecting stuff into it (matter, radiation, whatever), then the Hamiltonian would not be time-invariant and energy wouldn’t be conserved.
   
   And in terms of thermodynamic “laws”, again they are constructs. There’s a mystery of why the 2nd Law obtains, when the laws of physics are time-reversible (i.e. if you replace t by -t and go back into the past instead of the future you should calculate an increase of entropy in the past, but it will have been (going back into the past) necessarily a decrease if the entropy at present is greater than in the past).
   
   I hope this hasn’t confused you. My final thought about the laws of nature is that I agree with Galileo: “The laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics.”

 

[Touchstone]

Thank you Touchstone. So you are saying that what energy there is will be spaced out more and more. Therefore in the limit, the universe would be infinite in size and contain no energy.

There would always be some energy. It just dispersed so thoroughly, spread out so thin, that any given area of space would be very close to zero-energy. But so long as we understand the physical principle of conservation to hold, the energy in the universe never goes away.

Neither of course would be possible in reality.

If the physical principles we understand hold, then:

a) the energy in the universe will exist eternally as the finite sum it has always been (talking about positive energy here, which is matched by negative energy – our universe has a net sum of zero energy, remember!), and

b) our universe will grow, over an infinite period of time, to be infinite in size. From our many measurements now, the universe is expanding, and accelerating in its expansion and will grow forever.

That is unless God’s decides he has another plan, then, as always with God, all bets are off.

I think we have quite clearly answered that our universe (by the fact of our own existence) cannot be a single closed system that has always had energy operating under the laws of thermodynamics.

I’m not sure where you get that, as I think that both of your features there run afoul of the available science.

This is a “zero energy” universe. There is no ‘investment’ of energy needed for our universe to be as it is. All the positive energy (e.g. mass) is matched by the same measure of negative energy (e.g. gravity), meaning that the universe is a perfectly closed thermodynamic system, even in its origin. It doesn’t need a dollop of “starter kit” energy from God or an impersonal multiverse or anywhere else.

So far we can tell, the universe is a closed system. All of our physics depends crucially on this.

So this leaves three avenues we’ve mentioned that have not yet led to a contradiction:

1. 
   *]Energy has not always existed.
   *]The universe is not a closed system (at least it has not always been one).
   *]Energy has not always followed the laws of thermodynamics (or the laws incompletely describe energy).

1. 
   

   It is interesting (at least to me) to note that none of these three contradict the teachings of the Church.

   Hmmm. 2 and 3 there are not supported at all by the available science. They may be true, but these propositions would fundamentally overturn the physics we have available and use today. I think you are not aware of the “zero energy” status of our universe, and so are operating on a mistaken notion that our universe needed an “initial investment” of universal energy. The only energy involved from the “outside” would be the quantum uncertainty energy in a fluctuation that gave rise to our inflationary universe, energy “borrowed” at quantum scales and timeframes – not enough or persistent enough to violate the conservation of energy per the Second Law in that context.
   

   If energy has not always existed, God could have created it.

   On Catholic theism, God can do anything, so sure, it’s a possibility. But modern physics doesn’t need God to account for the presence of energy – it proceeds naturally, in both positive and negative forms, from an inflationary universe. God isn’t need for the existence of energy, per our physics models.
   

   If the universe has not always been closed, God could have moved some energy/matter into the universe. (Hmm, like Greylorn’s bomb example, except the fragments are galaxies).

   Again, could be. But every measurement, datum and calculation we have works against the idea that the universe is an open system, and towards the conclusion that the universe is a closed system.
   

   If energy has not always followed man’s current laws of thermodynamics, we could say anything could happen anytime and not be able to disprove it.

   Yes, behold theism!
   
   -TS

 

[greylorn]

Come on GL, I never figure you for the coy type; why the question. I suggested many moons ago that you should look into the theory of informational entropy. Surely you have found Claude Shannon’s theories by now?

Well, if I’m going to get called out, it might as well be by someone I used to like.

I only studied information theory once, about 40 years ago, in a book by Jagjit Singh (if memory works). There was something not quite right about it, but I was unable to figure out what, and it didn’t seem important to me at the time. An engineer friend who was into I.T. was unable to help either.

My question was intended to promote discussion, and it seems to have promoted it way over my head already. This thread is getting to be an excellent little physics forum, not yet infested by nits. Between TS and A33, the resolution to my disenchantment with info theory may have appeared. I’ll need to study up before trying to catch up with these guys.

You’d be better off spending your time on Shannon. I took another look at your web site and I don’t see an awful lot of progress in the last year. I would hope that your book is an additional effort outside of your web site. Why haven’t you ever made your web site available to this forum instead of alluding to your theory on numerous posts? I am sure there are those on this forum that would love to read it.

After finding some material from my site used elsewhere (not CAF), in one case almost verbatim, but not attributed, I took the site off public access and delinked all new pages. I have made it accessible to a few people from CAF who’ve requested it, and who also agreed to act as reviewers. Like you, two of them have been really helpful.

When the website bottomed out, they requested more information so I emailed them the new material URL’s, Some who had been given access to the base site requested more but did not get it because they had not done any criticism. I’m not one to pester anyone, so when I didn’t hear from you after you found my egregious error in the Energy chapter, I figured you’d lost interest as the ideas diverged from traditional theology. Kind of expected.

I don’t see many other signs of interest. A few, yes, and I’ve been tempted, but I’ve become somewhat wary and would hate to see my ideas published first by someone else. It’s been nearly 50 years of work, and I’m so, so close to the finish. Andy is already close to figuring some stuff out for himself.

Besides, I need to sell the book to buy some firewood and brandy to get me through the winter. Can’t sell a book to someone who’s already read it.

You challenge me and I responded, now I am challenging you.

Your friend in laughter.

Yppop

So long as it’s not my brilliant ideas you’re laughing at— email me, friend! I lost your address in a crash.

 

[Andy_III]

There would always be some energy. It just dispersed so thoroughly, spread out so thin, that any given area of space would be very close to zero-energy. But so long as we understand the physical principle of conservation to hold, the energy in the universe never goes away.

Agreed, I was using the language of calculus (perhaps badly), where saying that something goes to or approaches zero does not mean that it ever actually is zero.

If the physical principles we understand hold, then:

a) the energy in the universe will exist eternally as the finite sum it has always been (talking about positive energy here, which is matched by negative energy – our universe has a net sum of zero energy, remember!), and

b) our universe will grow, over an infinite period of time, to be infinite in size. From our many measurements now, the universe is expanding, and accelerating in its expansion and will grow forever.

I am specifically looking backward to see if we could even consider that energy has always existed. Consider this question: how big is a space that contains 1 Joule of energy usable to do work? If energy had always existed, I’d have to say that you’d need an infinite (unbounded) amount of space to collect 1 Joule. Since today I can get an 1800 mAh AA battery which holds about 7800 Joules of energy in about 1 cubic inch, I’d say that energy hasn’t always existed.

That is unless God’s decides he has another plan, then, as always with God, all bets are off.

Not quite - betting on God is a good strategy!

I’m not sure where you get that, as I think that both of your features there run afoul of the available science.

This is a “zero energy” universe. There is no ‘investment’ of energy needed for our universe to be as it is. All the positive energy (e.g. mass) is matched by the same measure of negative energy (e.g. gravity), meaning that the universe is a perfectly closed thermodynamic system, even in its origin. It doesn’t need a dollop of “starter kit” energy from God or an impersonal multiverse or anywhere else.

So far we can tell, the universe is a closed system. All of our physics depends crucially on this.

Hmmm. 2 and 3 there are not supported at all by the available science. They may be true, but these propositions would fundamentally overturn the physics we have available and use today. I think you are not aware of the “zero energy” status of our universe, and so are operating on a mistaken notion that our universe needed an “initial investment” of universal energy. The only energy involved from the “outside” would be the quantum uncertainty energy in a fluctuation that gave rise to our inflationary universe, energy “borrowed” at quantum scales and timeframes – not enough or persistent enough to violate the conservation of energy per the Second Law in that context.

Yes, you are right, I have not heard of this zero energy business. I don’t see how gravity could be described as negative energy (unless you’re talking about potential energy). Could you please elaborate a bit further on how zero energy was split into positive and negative energy to form matter? Is there an experiment that has created mass and gravity inside a vacuum without using any power? I need to know the basics to begin even discussing using the terms you’ve used.

On Catholic theism, God can do anything, so sure, it’s a possibility. But modern physics doesn’t need God to account for the presence of energy – it proceeds naturally, in both positive and negative forms, from an inflationary universe. God isn’t need for the existence of energy, per our physics models.

I agree, physics doesn’t need God, just as a handprint does not need a hand.

Again, could be. But every measurement, datum and calculation we have works against the idea that the universe is an open system, and towards the conclusion that the universe is a closed system.

Yes, that is why I refer to it that way. I don’t think avenue #2 matches the evidence. Either #1 or #3 would then contradict the premise in the OP.

Yes, behold theism!

Not quite, theism (specifically Catholic theism), has the position of not weighing in on matters that it cannot definitively state (i.e., faith and morals). The Catholic Church developed the scientific method, the laws of evidence, and its members are responsible for many of the early scientific discoveries. The Church understands the importance of scientific discovery and knows that it is a useful tool for learning about the world.

 

[Touchstone]

Agreed, I was using the language of calculus (perhaps badly), where saying that something goes to or approaches zero does not mean that it ever actually is zero.

OK, fair enough.

I am specifically looking backward to see if we could even consider that energy has always existed. Consider this question: how big is a space that contains 1 Joule of energy usable to do work? If energy had always existed, I’d have to say that you’d need an infinite (unbounded) amount of space to collect 1 Joule. Since today I can get an 1800 mAh AA battery which holds about 7800 Joules of energy in about 1 cubic inch, I’d say that energy hasn’t always existed.

I think this is probably a misunderstanding of positive and negative energy. One of the remarkable aspects of an inflationary universe is the creation of positive and negative energy out of the expansion triggered by the “false vacuum” of the early universe. As the early universe expands unthinkably rapidly from the size of approximately 1/100,000,000,000th the size of a proton, positive energy (matter) grows by enormous amounts (think 10^80 and more as a growth factor). At the same time negative energy (gravitation) grows by the same factor (or very very nearly depending on which inflationary model you prefer), creating as the universe expands vast amounts of both matter and gravity. The laws of thermodynamics are preserved, because the net energy is conserved at zero.

In terms of energy, then, the physics of our universe are such that there is a “free lunch”, so to speak, if we are just looking at matter. Energy is conserved, but on a net basis for the whole (closed) system. What you are referring to – matter – is “free” so long as corresponding negative energy is created along with it.

Not quite - betting on God is a good strategy!

Hah. Touché.

Yes, you are right, I have not heard of this zero energy business. I don’t see how gravity could be described as negative energy (unless you’re talking about potential energy). Could you please elaborate a bit further on how zero energy was split into positive and negative energy to form matter? Is there an experiment that has created mass and gravity inside a vacuum without using any power? I need to know the basics to begin even discussing using the terms you’ve used.

Ok, I think that pretty much identifies any differences we are having right here. My reaction here is to point you to both Hawking’s *A Brief History of Time, *and Alan Guth’s The Inflationary Universe, by way of introduction to this subject. You can read a lot of Guth’s book online here, and I highly recommend this, if you are interested.

For just a “web introduction”, the Wikipedia article on “Dark Energy” is a decent place to start. This presentation by Alan Guth is worth a look, too.

I agree, physics doesn’t need God, just as a handprint does not need a hand.

Ah, another zinger.

Yes, that is why I refer to it that way. I don’t think avenue #2 matches the evidence. Either #1 or #3 would then contradict the premise in the OP.

Not quite, theism (specifically Catholic theism), has the position of not weighing in on matters that it cannot definitively state (i.e., faith and morals).

Well, that’s one way to put it. “Cannot definitively state”, indeed. The Church weighs in on lots of matters that are a lot more shaky than just “not definitive”. In scientific terms, nothing is definitive, which would place the RCC and modern science on the same policy. I don’t think that’s an apt comparison of where each feels comfortable speaking.

The Catholic Church developed the scientific method, the laws of evidence, and its members are responsible for many of the early scientific discoveries. The Church understands the importance of scientific discovery and knows that it is a useful tool for learning about the world.

And that is to the Church’s enduring credit.

-TS

 

[Andy_III]

I think this is probably a misunderstanding of positive and negative energy. One of the remarkable aspects of an inflationary universe is the creation of positive and negative energy out of the expansion triggered by the “false vacuum” of the early universe. As the early universe expands unthinkably rapidly from the size of approximately 1/100,000,000,000th the size of a proton, positive energy (matter) grows by enormous amounts (think 10^80 and more as a growth factor). At the same time negative energy (gravitation) grows by the same factor (or very very nearly depending on which inflationary model you prefer), creating as the universe expands vast amounts of both matter and gravity. The laws of thermodynamics are preserved, because the net energy is conserved at zero.

In terms of energy, then, the physics of our universe are such that there is a “free lunch”, so to speak, if we are just looking at matter. Energy is conserved, but on a net basis for the whole (closed) system. What you are referring to – matter – is “free” so long as corresponding negative energy is created along with it.

Ok, I think that pretty much identifies any differences we are having right here. My reaction here is to point you to both Hawking’s *A Brief History of Time, *and Alan Guth’s The Inflationary Universe, by way of introduction to this subject. You can read a lot of Guth’s book online here, and I highly recommend this, if you are interested.

For just a “web introduction”, the Wikipedia article on “Dark Energy” is a decent place to start. This presentation by Alan Guth is worth a look, too.

It looks like I have some more studying to do. My physics knowledge is getting out of date. However, there are a couple things I noticed right away:

• Guth uses the term “eternal” but uses it to indicate in one direction only (i.e., into the future) – the inflation will continue forever, but started at time T0 (reusing the label from above)
• He relies on a specific configuration (false vacuum with negative pressure – both terms seem contradictory to my ears), but does not explain why those conditions would exist at a specific time (T0).
• I did not see any claim that something existed before his initial conditions or a claim that these initial conditions were around for all eternity before T0.

The science of physics is primarily useful for predicting future events, so I can understand why Guth focused on the long term implications (ever expanding, even accelerating universe), but this thread is primarily focused on what happened before the events we are familiar with and have deduced from stellar observation. Specifically, whether or not the universe had some initial state that was eternal (into the past) and possibly naturally transitioned into the current state of the universe.

Ah, another zinger.

No really, I meant it in all seriousness. Unfortunately, there is no emoticon for “I’m serious” that I’m aware of. A handprint really does not need a hand. I could sculpt a handprint in the sand (if I had any artistic ability in that area) to look exactly like someone had stuck their hand there. But the simplest explaination is that someone stuck their hand in the sand.

Well, that’s one way to put it. “Cannot definitively state”, indeed. The Church weighs in on lots of matters that are a lot more shaky than just “not definitive”. In scientific terms, nothing is definitive, which would place the RCC and modern science on the same policy.

Not surprising that the policy is similar, given the source and intent. It sounds like you have in mind some specific matters that the Church weighs in on. It might help to give specific examples, could you provide some?

And that is to the Church’s enduring credit.

I agree. The Catholic Church is one (of few?) that not only values human reason, it actually requires it. Some other religions (most based on some aspect of Catholicism) emphasize feelings and that just leads to trouble when the feelings change. Catholics are encouraged to exercise their will to control otherwise emotional responses.

 

[Touchstone]

The science of physics is primarily useful for predicting future events, so I can understand why Guth focused on the long term implications (ever expanding, even accelerating universe), but this thread is primarily focused on what happened before the events we are familiar with and have deduced from stellar observation. Specifically, whether or not the universe had some initial state that was eternal (into the past) and possibly naturally transitioned into the current state of the universe.

Physics is indeed useful, and no doubt, practical applications, and those which are able to provide “future predictability” are the ones to bet on for getting grants and funding, but the real charter of physics is a model that is explanatory, falsifiable, and economical in explaining the whole enchilada, forward AND BACKWARD. And if anything, there’s a lot more focus in physics (and this is especially true in cosmology) on figuring out the past than the future. That shouldn’t be surprising, though, as science is basically a way to look at the past AS THE MEANS of anticipating the future. As Lawrence Krauss like to say when he speaks, we need to know what happened at the very beginning to get a good view of what is going to happen at the end.

“Past eternal” is a tricky concept, and one that Guth (at least in BGV) can avoid because the nature of his model is such that all pasts are “non-eternal”, at least in a straightforward sense (is there any straightforward sense of ‘eternal’? You get my drift, I trust). He uses “past incomplete”, and I’m tempted to wander down that path (it’s interesting), but won’t here.

As for the false vacuum, that is an effect of quantum fluctuations. That is, that is precisely the starting point hypothesized by the “quantum fluctuation” idea of universe creation. It’s a metastable low-energy minimum, and this is what provides the massive “kick” for inflationary expansion by repulsive gravity. This is a very cool subject, but very involved. Can keep working this, but really, if you can get hold of Guth’s The Inflationary Universe and read Chapter 10, that is a very good exposition on this subject.

No really, I meant it in all seriousness. Unfortunately, there is no emoticon for “I’m serious” that I’m aware of. A handprint really does not need a hand. I could sculpt a handprint in the sand (if I had any artistic ability in that area) to look exactly like someone had stuck their hand there. But the simplest explaination is that someone stuck their hand in the sand.

OK, fair enough. It was still a pretty elegant zing, even if by accident!

The reason we opt for “it’s a real handprint” as the simplest explanation, though, is because we have humans with hands all around as the “match” for the phenomenon. The planet is basically crawling with humans and their hands, you can’t go anywhere and not see 'em. And this we understand to be the “agent” we can match to the phenomenon, the handprint.

The problem with cosmic design is that all you have is a putative handprint, and no people and no hands whatsoever to match it with. If there were no humans, and you were an alien just landing on the planet, would you as an alien infer design from a handprint-like imprint in the sand? No living things whatsoever to be found on the entire planet, and you find what we would say looks like a handprint. Do you infer design?

Not surprising that the policy is similar, given the source and intent. It sounds like you have in mind some specific matters that the Church weighs in on. It might help to give specific examples, could you provide some?

What I had in mind when I wrote that was the idea of Adam and Eve as the sole and actual genetic parents of all mankind. I believe this is dogma, but it is at least official, binding Church teaching. The refutation of that idea is not and cannot be “definitive” per science, but the more we learn and know on this topic – and it’s quite a bit now – the idea of a real Adam and Eve as a concurrent couple, and the genetic parents of all humanity is extremely hard to maintain.

And yet, the Catholic Church is quite confident it knows better!

I agree. The Catholic Church is one (of few?) that not only values human reason, it actually requires it. Some other religions (most based on some aspect of Catholicism) emphasize feelings and that just leads to trouble when the feelings change. Catholics are encouraged to exercise their will to control otherwise emotional responses.

Yes, and for all the problems I identify with Church teaching, and the reasoning applied officially and as the “daily membership of the Church in action”, it’s just problematic, not surreal, intransigent and impudently ignorant like so much of Evangelical Protestantism. Catholics do value reason and rationality in a much more authentic and sincere way than Evangelical Protestants, in my experience. They just apply lots of really careful thinking and evaluation on really feeble and unwarranted starting points and axioms. That’s a problem, and if you begin with bogus starting points, even the very best reasoning on top of that is not likely to yield good results. But even so, I appreciate the commitment to reasoning and thoughtfulness and real world evidence as far as it goes, wherever it happens, and there’s a lot of thoughtful people committed to reasoning on important questions here, which is, sadly, a huge distinction between the Catholic community and the intellectual ghetto that is modern Protestant evangelicalism.

-TS