AMR wrote:
Sure there would be kinetic energy associated with a "big bang". Prior to the findings on 1A supernovae debate centered over whether or not this kinetic energy was sufficient for a "flat" universe, where the rate of expansion would be slowed inexorably by gravity or if the gravitational mass of the matter of the universe would re-collapse a "closed" universe.

What are you going on about? I simply said that kinetic energy and gravity explain the movements of cosmic bodies in relation to each other. Stop muddying the water.

AMR wrote:
The range of gravity is, so far as I know, infinite, so everything is gravitationally "linked", every particle in the universe should play a role in slowing the universe's expansion;

Again, not what I was talking about. When I said gravitationally linked I meant close enough to each other so that gravity can overcome expansion. Cosmic bodies that are gravitationally linked sufficiently do not conform to the same accelerated dispersal do to expansion as bodies distant enough from each other to have a negligible link. What I was saying, and if you understand anything about cosmology and expansion you would have known what I was talking about, is that gravity holds certain systems together and overcomes this expansion of space where distance is concerned. Systems such planet moon systems, solar systems, galaxies, and galaxy clusters.

AMR wrote:
you mean objects not gravitationally "bound" are driven apart by Dark Energy.

No, I mean that cosmic bodies not sufficiently tied together by gravity will drift apart with the expansion in the space that they occupy. Even though they are getting father apart they are not moving farther apart.

AMR wrote:
Also if Dark Energy is the virtual particle generating vacuum energy then empty space posseses kinetic energy which is driving the acceleration of the universes expansion.

Just how did you jump to that conclusion?

AMR wrote:
Ok, so far as I know this is a totally new theory proposed by you. One obvious objection would be that the heat loss of matter would be totally insufficient to account for Dark Energy

I didn’t say heat loss from matter. It is heat loss from the surrounding environment, and the surrounding environment of new empty space is previously existing empty space. The universe began at 10^29 degrees Kelvin. The ambient temperature of the universe today is 2.76 Kelvin. Where do you think that all of that energy in the form of heat went? With no surrounding environment, because the universe is an isolated system, for this heat to wick away, what would be your explanation? Mine is that with every cubic centimeter of space created by expansion it becomes more spread out and so diluted and empty space gets cooler as expansion increases.

AMR wrote:
(recall ~70% of the mass-energy of the universe and growing). So how can the slow cooling of the universe's 2.725 +/- 0.002 degrees Kelvin background temperature from he remaining Dark Matter (~25%), and ordinary matter (~5%, galaxies are 0.0001 K warmer than cosmic background) drive AN ACCELERATING RATE OF EXPANSION?

Did I say that cooling drives expansion? I did not. I said that your hypothesis that energy being added from outside the system would negate the cooling.

AMR wrote:
The fact that the 1st Law is being questioned doesn't affect the 2nd Law, which is in fact more fundamental than the 1st Law.

They go hand in hand, but at maximum entropy and a universal temperature of absolute zero the 2nd law disappears, but the 1st law still applies.

AMR wrote:
No, the reverse of what you are imputing to me, the quote in question is "the second law of thermodynamics is unaffected by the existence of vacuum energy".
This is because "Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature."

That is all well and nice, but it does not say that the 2nd law is overturned or does not apply, it says that it is unaffected. Thanks for one more Wiki link that has nothing to do with your assertion. And more thanks for providing a link that tells me what I learned in 8th grade science class.

AMR wrote:

I never questioned the 2nd Law, but now that you raise the subject of entropy I'd like to raise another objection to Dawkins' reasoning that began this long thread. Entropy is a measure of randomness.

Not quite, in a maximum entropy environment nothing is random because all things are the same, and no mater which way you rotate the system, or which part you exchange for another the new system is indistinguishable from the old system. This describes the singularity in big bang theory. But lest you take this to mean that the universe began with maximum entropy, and so no increase in entropy can follow, I will have to point out that at the instant of the “Big Bang” entropy plunged to a minimum state and has been increasing overall since then. Why? Heat loss which causes increasing entropy, and follows the 2nd law.

AMR wrote:
Dawkins reasons that a less random or more complex state is rarer than a less complex or more random state.

In regards to a “creator” of the universe yes.

AMR wrote:
[However, if entropy of a system can only increase with time, can never be decreased -- a point I believe you have already acknowledged on this thread -- whatever force which gave rise to the universe must have had an even lower state of entropy -- meaning even more rare or improbable

You are assuming that some “force” gave rise to the universe, and I am assuming that you mean some sort of intelligent creator. You are also assuming that complexity cannot arise naturally from simplicity.

AMR wrote:
In other words Dawkins logic goes nowhere towards resolving the cosmic origin question;

Yes it does. Positing a some kind of an intelligent creator that is less complex than what it cerates is what is illogical.

AMR wrote:
presumably both theist and atheist must acknowledge a higher order or even less probable state of affairs.

Not me.

Oldskeptic wrote:
The difference between you, I, and people like Hackenslash is that we at least try to understand what we are talking about, and speaking for myself make an effort to verify that what I assert is backed up by real science.

AMR wrote:
Whoa, get off your high horse. For someone yet to provide some -- any --kind of reference for your evolving pub-crawling microbe why don't you practice what you preach viz. "make an effort to verify that what [you] assert is backed up by real science."

Yes, you are right. I couldn’t find anything on the internet about this piss eating organism and I said that in the beginning I believe. Because the article that I read was some years ago. What you are forgetting is that what I was talking about was the fine tuning argument gone haywire. And I did back it up with real science by citing other extremeophiles in similar sorts of situations.

This has nothing to do with your ignorant or intentional misuse of science.

AMR wrote:

twistor59 wrote: What I was getting at is that we currently have no way of deriving the vacuum energy from fundamental particle physics. . . . The Casimir effect tells us nothing about the absolute value of vacuum energy density. It only points to differences in vacuum energy density with and without the plates.The only way to estimate VED is currently phenomenological - measure the cosmic expansion and compute the VED responsible for it.

OK, then the answer to your original question, as you must know, would obviously be the subject of much debate. The inflation era lambda driving expansion implies a much greater force than we see today, so is the cosmological constant mutable and why would it adjust to save our universe from re-collapse, inhomogeneity, or cold dispersal?

The reason I raised it was that in a previous post

AMR wrote:
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created or destroyed; but clearly as the universe expands the vacuum energy increases, and what's more the more more it expands with time the faster it will expand. The expansion rate is accelerating with time, this clearly indicates more energy is being added to our universe system. There are only two possibilities here as I see things 1. energy is being created out of the growing vacuum of space or 2. energy is being added to the universe from outside; and I mean outside the universe as a whole itself, not just outside the observable part of our universe (which given the recent discovery of "Dark Flow" must be far greater than the total mass/energy of what is visible out to a ~13 billion light-year radius).

Explain the difference between "closed" and "isolated" universes with respect to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

you alluded to energy of the vacuum. I merely wanted to point out that the relationship between the cosmological constant and the vacuum energy is completely unknown at the moment, so there is no reason to be forced to consider an input of energy from "outside the universe" (whatever that may mean).

hackenslash: This was what I objected to in the first place. This is, in effect, saying that the collapse of the wavefunction is the uncertainty principle, because the collapse of the wavefunction is the only aspect of the uncertainty principle that the observer can effect.

Any observation or disturbance of particles involves an observer effect related to the uncertainty principle. The interaction of the observer with the particle in question changes it, the observer becomes part of the observed system. Observations require measurements hence this statement below that you were so critical of is not contradicting the "observer as part of system" concept:

The act of measuring one magnitude of a particle, be it its mass, its velocity, or its position, causes the other magnitudes to blur. This is not due to imprecise measurements. Technology is advanced enough to hypothetically yield correct measurements. The blurring of these magnitudes is a fundamental property of nature.

And note in this context "fundamental property of nature" means any act of SIMULTANEOUS determination of e.g. position and momentum of a particle, individually these magnitudes could be observed to a higher degree of resolution. It is the fundamental physical interaction of the process of observation which inversely alters the other magnitude.

You have made various assertions in your prior posts, some apparently in contradiction to each other:

1.The collapse of the wavefunction is NOT the uncertainty principle.
2. The collapse of the wavefunction is NOT the uncertainty principle, but a feature of it.
3. Collapse of the wavefunction requires observation, but the uncertainty principle does not.
4. And you still haven't explained how the observer being part of a system being observed conflates to the uncertainty principle requiring an observer.

You do not deny then that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle can be understood in terms of measurement processes involving the collapse of the wavefunction, correct? So when you make statements like the "collapse of the wavefunction requires observation, but the uncertainty principle does not" you realize you are talking about two interrelated concepts, correct? And the uncertainty principle, so far as it involves measurements, is all about an observer.

hackenslash: In reality, a particle can be an observer. Photons, for example, are observers (and in most cases of observation in QM experiments, it's actually a photon that is doing the observing).

So tell me how photons, or other kinds of particles were "observing" events BEFORE the universe came into being? Recall this was the whole point of your argument concerning QM observer effects, the uncertainty principle, and the instability (or impossibility) of nothingness:

Hackenslash wrote:
Errr, no. That nothing is unstable (actually, it's worse than that, it's impossible) is a proven fact, and stems from one of our most successful and accurate scientific principles. The uncertainty principle isnt a though [sic] experiment, it's a categorical feature of the universe, and beyond any serious questioning.

I assume you are here referring to quantum fluctuations, virtual particles arising from the uncertainty principle. Again this assumes the QM pre-existing the universe (being the cause of the universe) adn the universe being akin to a really big batch of virtual particles that for some reason last a really long, long time.

hackenslash: And what Heisenberg is talking about there, which you'd actually understand if you had a clue of what you're talking about, is that both values are uncertain until one of them is observed. In other words, whichever value is being measured only has a definite value when it's measured (observed). This is known as the collapse of the wavefunction, because both values exist only as a distribution of probability until one or the other is measured.

No, Heisenberg goes further, essentially the notion that there is no phenomenon until it is observed.

Oldskeptic: It is heat loss from the surrounding environment, and the surrounding environment of new empty space is previously existing empty space. The universe began at 10^29 degrees Kelvin. The ambient temperature of the universe today is 2.76 Kelvin. Where do you think that all of that energy in the form of heat went? With no surrounding environment, because the universe is an isolated system, for this heat to wick away, what would be your explanation? Mine is that with every cubic centimeter of space created by expansion it becomes more spread out and so diluted and empty space gets cooler as expansion increases.

But with only 2.76 K of blackbody radiation left to dissipate why is the universe's increasing expansion accelerating now and into the future? If there is less heat left to radiate wouldn't the rate of expansion slow?

I will have to point out that at the instant of the “Big Bang” entropy plunged to a minimum state and has been increasing overall since then. Why? Heat loss which causes increasing entropy, and follows the 2nd law.

So you are saying that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is invalid since it goes automatically from maximum to minimum entropy?

twistor59: I merely wanted to point out that the relationship between the cosmological constant and the vacuum energy is completely unknown at the moment, so there is no reason to be forced to consider an input of energy from "outside the universe" (whatever that may mean).

Right, there is not establishment consensus concerning exactly what is called "Dark Energy" however most speculation centers around virtual particles as the manifestation of the crackling kinetic energy of the vacuum, so I just go with that idea.

AMR wrote:

hackenslash: This was what I objected to in the first place. This is, in effect, saying that the collapse of the wavefunction is the uncertainty principle, because the collapse of the wavefunction is the only aspect of the uncertainty principle that the observer can effect.

Any observation or disturbance of particles involves an observer effect related to the uncertainty principle. The interaction of the observer with the particle in question changes it, the observer becomes part of the observed system. Observations require measurements hence this statement below that you were so critical of is not contradicting the "observer as part of system" concept:

I never had any objection to 'observer as part of the system'. My objection was to your assertion that the uncertainty principle requires an observer. It doesn't. That's the beginning and the end of the subject. Nothing you have presented suggests that the uncertainty principle requires an observer, and nor does anything in the literature.

The act of measuring one magnitude of a particle, be it its mass, its velocity, or its position, causes the other magnitudes to blur. This is not due to imprecise measurements. Technology is advanced enough to hypothetically yield correct measurements. The blurring of these magnitudes is a fundamental property of nature.

And note in this context "fundamental property of nature" means any act of SIMULTANEOUS determination of e.g. position and momentum of a particle, individually these magnitudes could be observed to a higher degree of resolution. It is the fundamental physical interaction of the process of observation which inversely alters the other magnitude.

Irrelevant. You're still talking about the collapse of the wavefunction, which is not the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle does not require an observer.

You have made various assertions in your prior posts, some apparently in contradiction to each other:

1.The collapse of the wavefunction is NOT the uncertainty principle.
2. The collapse of the wavefunction is NOT the uncertainty principle, but a feature of it.
3. Collapse of the wavefunction requires observation, but the uncertainty principle does not.
4. And you still haven't explained how the observer being part of a system being observed conflates to the uncertainty principle requiring an observer.

Please point out the contradictory statements in that list (not actually sure why you repeated yourself. The first two statements in that list are the same, the second containing further calrification). There are none. The only reason you think there are contradictions there is that you still have no fucking idea of what you're talking about, and you still think that the collapse of the wavefunction is what the uncertainty principle is all about. You're wrong.

You do not deny then that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle can be understood in terms of measurement processes involving the collapse of the wavefunction, correct? So when you make statements like the "collapse of the wavefunction requires observation, but the uncertainty principle does not" you realize you are talking about two interrelated concepts, correct? And the uncertainty principle, so far as it involves measurements, is all about an observer.

And here is the ultimate source of your cretinous understanding. The uncertainty principle has fuck all to do with measurement, which is what is meant in the statement from your own source about the uncertainty principle being a fundamental feature of the universe. Quantum uncertainty exists whether it is being measured or not. In other words, a particle doesn't actually possess either a position or a velocity. It is only when you measure it that you 'create' that feature of the particle, thus collapsing the wavefunction. In other words, the collapse of the wavefunction requires observation, but the uncertainty principle does not.

So tell me how photons, or other kinds of particles were "observing" events BEFORE the universe came into being?

What the holy fuck are you going on about? WHere did I suggest that anything was 'observing' before the universe came into being? Where the fuck did I suggest that the universe ever 'came into being' (big clue: any of the members here will tell you that I would never say such a thing. oh, and we're still waiting for your definition of 'universe')?

Recall this was the whole point of your argument concerning QM observer effects, the uncertainty principle, and the instability (or impossibility) of nothingness:

Hackenslash wrote:
Errr, no. That nothing is unstable (actually, it's worse than that, it's impossible) is a proven fact, and stems from one of our most successful and accurate scientific principles. The uncertainty principle isnt a though [sic] experiment, it's a categorical feature of the universe, and beyond any serious questioning.

I assume you are here referring to quantum fluctuations, virtual particles arising from the uncertainty principle. Again this assumes the QM pre-existing the universe (being the cause of the universe) adn the universe being akin to a really big batch of virtual particles that for some reason last a really long, long time.

Wrong again. Seriously, dude. I can arrange some remedial English classes for you, if you like, because you have utterly failed to understand a single word anybody's said to you. Firstly, the entire point of my argument concerning observer effects is that they are not required by the uncertainty principle, which is a fundamental property of the universe. Only one small feature of the uncertainty principle, which is only in operation when being measured or observed in some manner, has the feature you describe, namely the collapse of the wavefunction, but the uncertainty principle itself does not. Secondly, I have never in my life implied, stated or suggested in any way, shape or form that the universe ever had a beginning, or that the concept of 'before', or 'pre-existing' having any validity, because they fucking don't, and I challenge you to find a single instance of my doing so.

Oldskeptic wrote:
It is heat loss from the surrounding environment, and the surrounding environment of new empty space is previously existing empty space. The universe began at 10^29 degrees Kelvin. The ambient temperature of the universe today is 2.76 Kelvin. Where do you think that all of that energy in the form of heat went? With no surrounding environment, because the universe is an isolated system, for this heat to wick away, what would be your explanation? Mine is that with every cubic centimeter of space created by expansion it becomes more spread out and so diluted and empty space gets cooler as expansion increases.

AMR wrote:
But with only 2.76 K of blackbody radiation left to dissipate why is the universe's increasing expansion accelerating now and into the future? If there is less heat left to radiate wouldn't the rate of expansion slow?

Your question would make sense if the dissipation of heat was what was driving expansion, but it is not. The dilution of thermal energy is a result of expansion not the cause. Even when or if a time is reached where all matter has decayed giving up its potential thermal energy and all thermal energy has dissipated to the point where maximum entropy is reached again, but in a different form, the expansion may not stop nor slow down. Dark energy according to the hypotheses does not on act anything other than “empty” space.

You want an outside energy source that drives expansion, but you can’t have it. Not anymore than you can have an outside energy source that drives gravitation. Gravity “pulls” matter towards matter, it has positive pressure, and the closer things get to each other the stronger the mutual attraction. The force of gravity does not increase as distance diminishes but the strength of attraction does. We see the same accelerated behavior in one body “falling” towards another body with gravity as we do with expansion. A closing of distance at faster and faster rates the shorter the distances get.

Gravity is an attractive force with positive pressure. Dark energy or the effect of it can be seen as a repulsive force with negative pressure. Gravity has a strong affect on matter but a very weak affect on empty space- Dark energy has a strong affect on empty space but no, or a very weak affect, on matter.

There is no need for an outside input of energy to drive accelerated expansion if it follows the same rules as accelerated attraction that gravity does.

It appears that gravity and dark energy may be flip sides of the same coin, and evidence for this is that the universe was not always undergoing accelerated expansion. But some crucial point in the size of the universe and the amount of empty space was reached where the volume of empty space and its connected repulsive force became large enough to be strong enough to overcome gravity and begin speeding up instead of slowing down expansion.

Now we come to the cosmological constant. Einstein’s cosmological constant was strong enough to allow for, even promote, initial expansion but weak enough to allow gravity to restrain expansion when equilibrium was reached between the attractive force and the repulsive force. Einstein was wrong in the value, but correct in the concept.

Oldskeptic wrote:
I will have to point out that at the instant of the “Big Bang” entropy plunged to a minimum state and has been increasing overall since then. Why? Heat loss which causes increasing entropy, and follows the 2nd law.

AMR wrote:
So you are saying that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is invalid since it goes automatically from maximum to minimum entropy?

Not at all , the 2nd law always applied both before and after. In the singularity there was no heat loss to a surrounding environment because there was no surrounding environment, and being pure plasma no part was distinguishable from any other. This is called rotational symmetry. A perfect sphere has rotational symmetry of 1/1. It is at maximum entropy if there is no heat loss. A circle has a rotational symmetry of 1/2. A square 1/4 . And a snowflake a1/6

Even though the proto-universe was extremely hot its density and gravity could keep it in a state of maximum entropy. But there is something called spontaneous symmetry breaking. Once this occurred and expansion began, heat loss began.

Heat loss to surrounding environment is part of the 2nd law, but so is heat loss to expanding environment, so with the temperature of the universe going from maximum towards a future minimum in an instant the expanding universe went from maximum entropy to minimum entropy just that fast.

Also at the instance of initiation of expansion, particulars (Not particles because at this extreme heat physical particles are not possible) that made up the proto-universe began flying off in different directions. Symmetry was a thing of the past, and symmetry is key to and required by maximum entropy.

If you want to talk about the 1st law or the 2nd law or entropy then you should try to gain an understanding of them. Especially if you want to question or dispute them or use them in your arguments.

So much crazy, so little time...

Keep up the good work guys.

MB

Indeed. How's the study going? Any closer to building skynet yet?

hackenslash wrote:Indeed. How's the study going? Any closer to building skynet yet?

Shhh, it's a secret

. . . as I said from the start they are controversial . . .

hackenslash: No they're not.

Talk about a cretin not having a clue. The interpretation of quantum mechanics is an ongoing subject of debate from its first theoretical inception to the present day.

hackenslash: My objection was to your assertion that the uncertainty principle requires an observer. It doesn't. That's the beginning and the end of the subject. Nothing you have presented suggests that the uncertainty principle requires an observer, and nor does anything in the literature.

The uncertainty principle has no meaning without an observer. The uncertainty principle concerns measurements of physical phenomena. Measurements require observers.

There are at least a dozen prominent interpretations of QM that differ concerning determinism, reality of the wavefunction, collapsibility of the wavefunction, histories of particles, hidden variables, and the role of the observer.

Einstein never accepted the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics as a "real" and complete theory. And von Neumann's interpretation holds a central role for the "conscious" observer in QM.

In attempting to judge the success of a physical theory, we may ask ourselves two questions: 1. "is the theory correct?" and 2. "is the description given by the theory complete?" It is only in the case in which positive answers may be given to both of these questions, that the concepts of the theory may be said to be satisfactory. The correctness of the theory is judged by the degree of agreement between the conclusions of the theory and human experience.
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., Rosen, N. (1935).Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?, Physical Review 47: 777-780.

Personally I'm not advocating any one position here (I'm a QM agnostic) my role has been merely to show that lively debate on the subject exists.

hackenslash: Define 'physical universe'.

The sum of all matter, energy and space that is observable or detectable, and all other matter, energy, and space that may be causally linked.

Oldskeptic: If you want to talk about the 1st law or the 2nd law or entropy then you should try to gain an understanding of them.

Pot to kettle. . . .

AMR wrote:Talk about a cretin not having a clue.

The interpretation of quantum mechanics is an ongoing subject of debate from its first theoretical inception to the present day.

Who said anything about interpretation? I certainly haven't. I've only talked about what we actually know, and there's been nothing remotely controversial in any of my posts in that regard.

The uncertainty principle has no meaning without an observer. The uncertainty principle concerns measurements of physical phenomena.

Bzzzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for once again exposing that you have no fucking clue of what you're talking about. The uncertainty principle is a fundamental property of the universe and doesn't require observations. Once again, the citation from your own cited source that fucks your argument up the arse with a cheese-covered stick:

This is not due to imprecise measurements. Technology is advanced enough to hypothetically yield correct measurements. The blurring of these magnitudes is a fundamental property of nature.

Measurements require observers.

Indeed they do, but the uncertainty principle exists without observation. It is the collapse of the wavefunction that requires observation. I note that this has now been pointed out to you about ten times and you still don't get it.

There are at least a dozen prominent interpretations of QM that differ concerning determinism, reality of the wavefunction, collapsibility of the wavefunction, histories of particles, hidden variables, and the role of the observer.

Yes, and those interpretations are attempts at explaining the facts. None of this has any bearing on the FACT that the uncertainty principle does not require observation, and nothing you have cited has remotely come close to demonstrating otherwise.

Einstein never accepted the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics as a "real" and complete theory.

Einstein never accepted a lot of things, and the Copenhagen is only one interpretation. That's completely irrelevant, of course, because it has fuck all to do with the FACT that the uncertainty principle does not require an observer.

And von Neumann's interpretation holds a central role for the "conscious" observer in QM.

All of which is irrelevant, and that's completely aside from the fact that most physicists preferred Dirac's approach. The role of the observer in QM does not, however, equate to the role of the observer in the uncertainty principle, because the role of the observer in the uncertainty principle is in the collapse of the wavefunction, not the principle of quantum uncertainty itself. You have typed a lot of meaningless text here that does not remotely support your position in a vacuous attempt to make it look like you actually have any idea of what you're talking about. You don't.

Personally I'm not advocating any one position here (I'm a QM agnostic) my role has been merely to show that lively debate on the subject exists.

Oh, a QM agnostic, eh? Well colour me unsurprised. We get a lot of QM agnostics here, little realising that the well-established principles they are agnostic on are responsible for their ability to post this ignorant fucking guff in the first place. You have not the first idea of what you're talking about, and it's clear that you're just grabbing material that you think supports your position (and I give you credit for being one of the better examples I've come across), but to the scientifically literate members here who actually understand the material you're discussing, both this and the other topics you have been getting your arse handed to you with regard to throughout the course of this thread, it's clear that you don't actually grasp the subject matter.

hackenslash: Define 'physical universe'.

The sum of all matter, energy and space that is observable or detectable, and all other matter, energy, and space that may be causally linked.

Right, then your definition of 'universe' is almost, but not quite, complete. It does, however, include whatever preceded the big bang. I suggest you go and have a look at the implications for that in your questions, as you may want to reformulate them to take that into account.

For my part, in light of this almost very rigorous definition, I think the concept of 'before' or 'creation' is entirely meaningless, because the universe is simply 'all that is' (note how I managed to get from your almost rigorous definition to an entirely rigorous definition simply by trimming it back to three words?)

Oldskeptic: If you want to talk about the 1st law or the 2nd law or entropy then you should try to gain an understanding of them.

Pot to kettle. . . .

Oh dear.

Oldskeptic:
If you want to talk about the 1st law or the 2nd law or entropy then you should try to gain an understanding of them.

AMR wrote:
Pot to kettle. . . .

That is a pathetic response to a well thought out explanation of what you do not understand. And I’ll take your immature response as frustration with not being able to explain how I was wrong.

Oh, and by the way Von Neumann concluded that an “observer” could be a human brain, or any other kind of detector and this includes photons.

hackenslash wrote:that fucks your argument up the arse with a cheese-covered stick

Meanwhile, this is what apparently passes as acceptable dialogue in this forum; hackenslash please keep your personal pastimes and hobbies out of the debate, speaking for myself at least, I have no interest.

hackenslash: I've only talked about what we actually know

OK, but then you make statements like:

hackenslash: The uncertainty principle is a fundamental property of the universe and doesn't require observations. the uncertainty principle exists without observation.

BTW, How do you know without making any observations? It would be by definition unempirical and unscientific speculation or interpretation hence my reference to a verity of published opinion on the subject; And I know you continue to be hung up on a fairly obvious misapprehension (or perhaps you feign ignorance) of that quote I cited, in which "fundamental property of the universe" simply means the observer cannot help interacting with any observed system. You seem to think it is the "blur" itself that is fundamental to the universe. No! the blur results from the physical act of observation.

With regard to universes.

hackenslash: I suggest you go and have a look at the implications for that in your questions, as you may want to reformulate them to take that into account.

The causality clause in my definition is to distinguish this physical universe, which may well extend beyond both visible and particle horizons and encompass all that Max Tegmark defines as a level 1 universe, should it even be infinite in extent.

hackenslash: For my part, in light of this almost very rigorous definition, I think the concept of 'before' or 'creation' is entirely meaningless

If you posit a universe that had no begining, and you presumably accept the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, then you must accept a past universe of an ever increasingly higher ordered state extending backwards in time, forever. It is hard to imagine, given such ever mounting complexity, that the material of the universe wouldn't eventually at some point encompass something along the lines of the cosmic mind envisioned by Tipler.

My counter to Dawkins' so-called "747 Gambit" is that Dawkins submits that a less random or more complex state is rarer than a less complex or more random state. Entropy is a measure of randomness. However, if entropy of a system can only increase with time, can never be decreased, whatever force which gave rise to the universe must have had an even lower state of entropy; meaning even more rare or improbable state. In other words Dawkins logic goes nowhere towards resolving the cosmic origin question. Both theist and atheist must acknowledge a higher order or even less probable state of affairs. This even renders speculated multi-verses irrelevant. However big the meta-verse is, it is a physical system which according to the 2nd Law could only have arisen from an even higher state of order.

Oldskeptic: That is a pathetic response to a well thought out explanation of what you do not understand.

Yeah you are right, I don't understand your rank speculation which totally lacks proper theoretical foundation; what am I supposed to say about it? Humour you? Why don't you submit your idea to any kind of peer reviewed scientific publication and see what they do with your "well thought out exlplanation"?

Here is what I take away from your reasoning process:

Oldskeptic: So, where does this increase of potential energy come from if it is not being added from outside the isolated system that is our universe? Heat loss.

Then you go on to say,

Oldskeptic: Your question would make sense if the dissipation of heat was what was driving expansion, but it is not. The dilution of thermal energy is a result of expansion not the cause.

You try to construct your idea around a supposed need to preserve the 1st Law of Thermodynamics above all else; so it is "heat loss" that drives the inflation? No you say it is the result of expansion not the cause. But what is the cause of the expansion? and what is losing losing heat?

Oldskeptic: I didn’t say heat loss from matter. It is heat loss from the surrounding environment, and the surrounding environment of new empty space is previously existing empty space

As with hackenslash above you totally misunderstand a basic physical concept here. Heat, the transfer of energy from matter, can only be emitted from material objects. So when you make statements like "I didn’t say heat loss from matter" you are making no sense. Where else does "heat" come from? Matter emits heat in the form of black-body radiation so the EM field itself can have a temperature associated with it. An object in a vacuum can thus radiate its thermal energy into space in the form of light, but empty space itself does not radiate heat. If you are referring to the vacuum energy it already exists at the lowest energy state so thermal energy is not being transferred anywhere so it doesn't even qualify as "heat" which is defined as the transfer of energy. And besides what gives rise to this increasing vacuum energy, which overpowers gravity, in the first place? Your are confusing your supposed cause and effect.

AMR wrote:
Here is what I take away from your reasoning process:

Oldskeptic wrote: So, where does this increase of potential energy come from if it is not being added from outside the isolated system that is our universe? Heat loss.

AMR wrote:
Then you go on to say,

Oldskeptic wrote:
Your question would make sense if the dissipation of heat was what was driving expansion, but it is not. The dilution of thermal energy is a result of expansion not the cause.

AMR wrote:
You try to construct your idea around a supposed need to preserve the 1st Law of Thermodynamics above all else;

It is not my idea, it is part of the expansion model. And it has nothing to do with preserving the 1st law, there is no need to preserve or protect it. It depends on nothing other than that matter and energy exist and this equation E = MC 2 which converts to M = E/ C 2 .

AMR wrote:
so it is "heat loss" that drives the inflation? No you say it is the result of expansion not the cause. But what is the cause of the expansion? and what is losing losing heat?

Heat loss being a result of expansion has nothing to do with what the cause is. It doesn’t matter what the cause is, if it is expanding without heat being added to cause the expansion then it is cooling.

Oldskeptic wrote:
I didn’t say heat loss from matter. It is heat loss from the surrounding environment, and the surrounding environment of new empty space is previously existing empty space

AMR wrote:
As with hackenslash above you totally misunderstand a basic physical concept here. Heat, the transfer of energy from matter, can only be emitted from material objects.

There’s just a bit of circular reasoning there that I won’t argue with because if you define heat as “The transfer of energy from matter” then of course heat could only come from matter. But is it true? Matter is formed by three things: Electrons, up quarks, and down quarks. Electrons are not matter and neither are quarks. It is only when they are combined it a certain way that there is matter. And they could only combine to form matter after the universe had cooled from 10^19 GeV to 1 MeV. That’s a lot of heat loss, so where did it go? It didn’t go anywhere really, it was spread out into space as it expanded.

AMR wrote:
So when you make statements like "I didn’t say heat loss from matter" you are making no sense. Where else does "heat" come from?

Let’s put this back into context:

AMR wrote:
Ok, so far as I know this is a totally new theory proposed by you. One obvious objection would be that the heat loss of matter would be totally insufficient to account for Dark Energy.

Oldskeptic wrote:
I didn’t say heat loss from matter. It is heat loss from the surrounding environment, and the surrounding environment of new empty space is previously existing empty space. The universe began at 10^29 degrees Kelvin. The ambient temperature of the universe today is 2.76 Kelvin. Where do you think that all of that energy in the form of heat went? With no surrounding environment, because the universe is an isolated system, for this heat to wick away, what would be your explanation? Mine is that with every cubic centimeter of space created by expansion it becomes more spread out and so diluted and empty space gets cooler as expansion increases.

Never did I say that any form of heat loss drives or is responsible for dark energy.

AMR wrote:
Matter emits heat in the form of black-body radiation so the EM field itself can have a temperature associated with it. An object in a vacuum can thus radiate its thermal energy into space in the form of light, but empty space itself does not radiate heat.

What are all those radio images of cosmic background radiation all about then? All of the universe is filled with it particularly “empty space.” Empty space is filled with photons mainly in the microwave spectrum that have existed since expansion began, and to explain why the overall temperature of space has and is cooling physicists sight dilution of these photons by expansion. If all of these photons were packed into your living room you wouldn’t have any furniture left. In fact you wouldn’t have a living room, and probably not even a planet to have a living room on. Because it would be so hot that they would burn to less than cinders, but spread out in “empty” space these photons are less threatening.

AMR wrote:
If you are referring to the vacuum energy it already exists at the lowest energy state so thermal energy is not being transferred anywhere so it doesn't even qualify as "heat" which is defined as the transfer of energy. And besides what gives rise to this increasing vacuum energy, which overpowers gravity, in the first place? Your are confusing your supposed cause and effect.

I wasn’t referring to vacuum energy at all, but if you are talking about what kind of force is responsible for expansion here it is again:

Oldskeptic wrote:
Your question would make sense if the dissipation of heat was what was driving expansion, but it is not. The dilution of thermal energy is a result of expansion not the cause. Even when or if a time is reached where all matter has decayed giving up its potential thermal energy and all thermal energy has dissipated to the point where maximum entropy is reached again, but in a different form, the expansion may not stop nor slow down. Dark energy according to the hypotheses does not on act on anything other than space itself.

You want an outside energy source that drives expansion, but you can’t have it. Not anymore than you can have an outside energy source that drives gravitation. Gravity “pulls” matter towards matter, it has positive pressure, and the closer things get to each other the stronger the mutual attraction. The force of gravity does not increase as distance diminishes but the strength of attraction does. We see the same accelerated behavior in one body “falling” towards another body with gravity as we do with expansion. A closing of distance at faster and faster rates the shorter the distances get.

Gravity is an attractive force with positive pressure. Dark energy or the effect of it can be seen as a repulsive force with negative pressure. Gravity has a strong affect on matter but a very weak affect on empty space- Dark energy has a strong affect on empty space but no, or a very weak affect, on matter.

There is no need for an outside input of energy to drive accelerated expansion if it follows the same rules as accelerated attraction that gravity does.

Who or what theory or observation/s say that vacuum energy is increasing? I guess if you said that each cubic centimeter of empty space has an expected energy of X and then said that as space expands each cubic centimeter still has exactly X then intuition would tell you that vacuum energy is increasing proportionally to the expansion. But is that what is happening? Can you cite any interesting hypothesis or theory or equation that would support energy density of empty space remaining the same while empty space expands?

AMR wrote:

hackenslash: The uncertainty principle is a fundamental property of the universe and doesn't require observations. the uncertainty principle exists without observation.

BTW, How do you know without making any observations? It would be by definition unempirical and unscientific speculation or interpretation hence my reference to a verity of published opinion on the subject; And I know you continue to be hung up on a fairly obvious misapprehension (or perhaps you feign ignorance) of that quote I cited, in which "fundamental property of the universe" simply means the observer cannot help interacting with any observed system. You seem to think it is the "blur" itself that is fundamental to the universe. No! the blur results from the physical act of observation.

Sorry AMR did you really type the above? It is factually incorrect.

We know that the uncertainty principle is a fundamental property of quantum systems because of the wave-particle duality of the actors in such systems.

I'm sure you've seen the probability clouds for the position of an electron around a nucleus. Another way to visualise the same is to think of a wave passing through all points on that probability cloud. To localise the electron you must compress the wave from many indeterminate points down towards a single point - simple graphing reveals that this activity must also compress the wave function.

Now, the momentum of the particle is proportional to the wavelength of the wave function. When the wave function is not compressed, the wavelenth at any point is easy to determine ie. you know the momentum but the position is uncertain. When you compress the wave function, there are proportionately many possibilities for which particular loop of the sine wave gives rise to the momentum of the particle ie. localising position inherently increases uncertainty about momentum.

The uncertainty principle is a property of quantum particles due to their wave-particle duality. Demonstrating it is a matter of simple probabilty and graphing.

Can we stop arguing over the uncertainty principle now?

Just A Theory wrote:We know that the uncertainty principle is a fundamental property of quantum systems because of the wave-particle duality of the actors in such systems.

As I wrote above there are many interpretations of QM, is it merely a probability distribution or a material field?; several interpretations reject the reality of the wavefunction. E.g. the Stochastic mechanical interpretation.

via Wikipedia:
Edward Nelson (1966).
"Derivation of the Schrödinger Equation from Newtonian Mechanics". Physical Review 150: 1079–1085
Khavtain Namsrai (1985). Nonlocal Quantum Field Theory and Stochastic Quantum Mechanics. Springer. ISBN 9027720010
Roumen Tsekov (2009). "Dissipative and Quantum Mechanics". New Adv. Phys. 3: 35–44

The traditional Copenhagen interpretation would be that the question is meaningless until a measurement is actually made. Actual measurement/observation resolves the wave-particle duality question by the famous double-slit experiment, prior to the observation the Copenhagen interpretation would be that light is neither.

Oldskeptic wrote:What are all those radio images of cosmic background radiation all about then? All of the universe is filled with it particularly “empty space.” Empty space is filled with photons mainly in the microwave spectrum that have existed since expansion began, and to explain why the overall temperature of space has and is cooling physicists sight dilution of these photons by expansion.

As I said light does have a temperature associated with it from the matter that emitted it. The CMBR is radiated from a

fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it, grew cooler. When the universe cooled enough, stable atoms could form. These atoms could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and the universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog. The photons that existed at that time have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter and less energetic, since the exact same photons fill a larger and larger universe. This is the source for the term relic radiation, another name for the CMBR.

Oldskeptic wrote: Who or what theory or observation/s say that vacuum energy is increasing? I guess if you said that each cubic centimeter of empty space has an expected energy of X and then said that as space expands each cubic centimeter still has exactly X then intuition would tell you that vacuum energy is increasing proportionally to the expansion. But is that what is happening? Can you cite any interesting hypothesis or theory or equation that would support energy density of empty space remaining the same while empty space expands?

Check out Sky & Telescope PDF on Dark Energy, page 36 has a graphic.

My decrepit old computer seizes up when trying load pdfs so I can’t take a look at your graphic, but I was able to figure out that it is in an article by Sean Carroll. If you think that Carroll thinks that w can be less than -1, which is what it would take for energy density increasing over time, then you are mistaken. For this to happen energy would have to be able to propagate faster than the speed of light. In fact he says that he contributed to a paper about it.

He does say though that the value of w seems to be centered around -1, which would make the energy density constant if it was exactly -1, but all it would take for energy density to be decreasing is a small difference from -1 to a higher value. And given the rule of thumb that density decreases with expansion this seems to be the likely case.

Sean Carroll:
Last time we talked about dark energy and its equation-of-state parameter, w. This number tells you how quickly the dark energy density changes as the universe expands; if w=-1, the density is strictly constant, if w>-1, the density decreases, and if w<-1, the density actually increases with time. (In equations, if a is the scale factor describing the relative size of the universe as a function of time, then the density goes as a-3(1+w).) For comparison purposes, cosmological "matter" (slowly-moving massive particles) has w=0, and "radiation" (relativistic particles, including photons) has w=1/3.

Einstein's cosmological constant is just the idea that there is a fixed minimum energy density everywhere in the universe; this vacuum energy would correspond to w=-1. It's easy enough to get an energy density that slowly diminishes, with w>-1; all you need to do is invent some scalar field slowly rolling down a very gentle potential, so that the energy is nearly constant but in fact gradually diminishes.

What about w<-1, corresponding to a gradually increasing energy density? It's not what you would typically expect; the expansion of the universe tends to dilute energy, not increase it. So for a some time cosmologists who put observational limits on the value of w would exclude w<-1 by hand. In fact, I am somewhat to blame for this custom. As far as I know, the first paper to constrain w using supernova data is the one by Garnavich et al., the High-Z Supernova Team. I am friends with these guys -- Brian Schmidt, leader of the collaboration, was my officemate during grad school -- and one day they called me up to ask whether there was a good reason why they could ignore w<-1. In general relativity, it often happens that we want to make some general statements about possible solutions without knowing exactly what the matter/energy sources are, so we invoke "energy conditions" that put some reasonable constraints on what the sources can do. The most physically reasonable condition is the Dominant Energy Condition (DEC), which is what allows you to prove that energy can't propagate faster than the speed of light. So I pointed out that imposing the DEC would exclude the w<-1 possibility. I wrote a couple of paragraphs to this effect, and got included as a co-author on the paper; afterwards, people were happily ignoring w<-1 a priori.

http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.co ... nergy.html

AMR wrote:Meanwhile, this is what apparently passes as acceptable dialogue in this forum; hackenslash please keep your personal pastimes and hobbies out of the debate, speaking for myself at least, I have no interest.

Awww, did the nasty atheist offend you? Diddums! Tell somebody who gives a fuck.

BTW, How do you know without making any observations? It would be by definition unempirical and unscientific speculation or interpretation hence my reference to a verity of published opinion on the subject; And I know you continue to be hung up on a fairly obvious misapprehension (or perhaps you feign ignorance) of that quote I cited, in which "fundamental property of the universe" simply means the observer cannot help interacting with any observed system. You seem to think it is the "blur" itself that is fundamental to the universe. No! the blur results from the physical act of observation.

Oh, my. That's not what the statement means at all. It means that the uncertainty principle is always in operation. It is yourself that is hung up on a misapprehension, namely that the uncertainty principle requires an observer. Only one specific feature of the uncertainty principle requires observation, and this has been pointed out to you countless times now. That you are simply ignoring that and restating your ignorant drivel is by far the greater discoursive offence here. As far as can be ascertained, a particle doesn't actually possess either a position or a velocity until the wavefunction is collapsed.

The causality clause in my definition is to distinguish this physical universe, which may well extend beyond both visible and particle horizons and encompass all that Max Tegmark defines as a level 1 universe, should it even be infinite in extent.

Your definition is rejected, for reasons already stated. In reality, the causal mechanism behind the big bang is not known, but your definition discards it. This isn't even about that portion of that which arose from the big bang that isn't visible to us due to expansion, but that which lies outside our cosmic expansion. Your definition dismisses any causal relationships in that regard, which is foolish in the extreme.

If you posit a universe that had no begining, and you presumably accept the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, then you must accept a past universe of an ever increasingly higher ordered state extending backwards in time, forever. It is hard to imagine, given such ever mounting complexity, that the material of the universe wouldn't eventually at some point encompass something along the lines of the cosmic mind envisioned by Tipler.

My counter to Dawkins' so-called "747 Gambit" is that Dawkins submits that a less random or more complex state is rarer than a less complex or more random state. Entropy is a measure of randomness. However, if entropy of a system can only increase with time, can never be decreased, whatever force which gave rise to the universe must have had an even lower state of entropy; meaning even more rare or improbable state. In other words Dawkins logic goes nowhere towards resolving the cosmic origin question. Both theist and atheist must acknowledge a higher order or even less probable state of affairs. This even renders speculated multi-verses irrelevant. However big the meta-verse is, it is a physical system which according to the 2nd Law could only have arisen from an even higher state of order.

Oh, dear. He thinks entropy is disorder, and purports to be in a position to teach us about physics. Back to school for you, son.

Going back to the beginning:

Hackenslash wrote:
Errr, no. That nothing is unstable (actually, it's worse than that, it's impossible) is a proven fact, and stems from one of our most successful and accurate scientific principles. The uncertainty principle isnt a though experiment, it's a categorical feature of the universe, and beyond any serious questioning.

AMR wrote:
As I understand classical QM the uncertainty principal requires observers; what observers were there in the beginning of the universe…

The standard model of quantum mechanics includes the uncertainty principle as a demonstrated principle that cannot be refuted without overturning all of the standard model. If in theory, accepted theory, it is impossible to know precisely position and momentum of a particle at the same time then no observer is necessary. The uncertainty is always there as a part of the system.

Observers interfering with the system is another matter. This happens, but it is physical interference not just the act of observation. It depends on what is used to make the observation. You can use an electron microscope to look at lots of really tiny things without the observation affecting the tiny things. That is until you get to the atomic level where the energy of an electron actually accounts for something.

Here the energy used to make the observation does affect the system and can add uncertainties that must be accounted for and reconciled, but this has nothing to do with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle which says nothing about devices or observations.

In principle the position and moment of a particle cannot be known. Where is an observer required in this to make it true? It is not that observers cannot determine position and momentum accurately at the same time, it is that it is impossible whether there is an observer or not.

Anyway, this whole thing with the uncertainty principle here seems to have started with Hackenslash correctly saying that the uncertainty principle makes “nothingness” so unstable as to be impossible. But AMR instead of wanting to know why went off on a tangent about observers affecting probability wave collapse, which has little if nothing to do with the uncertainty principle.

@AMR :
If you would like to learn why “nothingness” is so unstable as to be virtually impossible and how the uncertainty principle fits in then just ask. There are a few of us here that will happily explain it to you.

Hello. I last participated back on page 7 or 8. I updated that article I posted to include what I like to call the Bootstrap Gambit:

The physical cannot come into existence by its own bootstraps that don't yet exist--it would be like "the" circular argument. To suggest there is some as-yet unfound explanation for a bootstrap universe is to suggest there is a valid circular argument out there--we just haven't found it yet. It is to be satisfied with making the physical universe into a circular argument. That's just not logical. Bombarding that assertion by throwing an infinite number of rolling balls (the unproved multiverse) at it, because one thinks it more simple than a simple God one cannot imagine, just pushes the question back, because, as Brian Greene explained--there is a beginning. Dawkins' Ultimate 747 Gambit cannot fly. Long live the Cosmological Argument, or, the Bootstrap Gambit, if you like.

http://www.examiner.com/apologetics-in-san-francisco/reasons-for-faith-101-the-cosmological-argument-alive-and-well

Please also check this out:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philosophy/harris-landscape-philosophers-carnival-t13110.html