Second Law of thermodynamics predicts God?

[stephen_speicher]

... by knowing everything that can be known in the universe- every particle and it's current movement- couldn't one predict everything that will ever happen in this great machine we call a universe, in which we merely happen to be cogs

The answer is, of course, that we are not cogs, but volitional beings. If we knew all of the initial conditions governing the physical determinstic behavior of non-volitional entities ( a somewhat daunting assumption), and if we knew all of the laws of physics governing that deterministic behavior, then indeed we could predict all, moment to moment, but only if volitional beings did not exist. A bit of a quandry there though, since the very act of such a prediction implies the existence of a volitional being, and the existence of a volitional being obliterates prediction for all actions and processes. We are not mere puppets being moved about on the stage of the universe, but rather we change the storyline, change the words which are uttered, and choose to direct the scene as we see fit (if you can withstand such a Hollywood metaphore!).

That we are volitonal beings is not something to be questioned. You can take your own word on that.

Problem is... physics has found that it does... kind of... happen anyway. It bothers us a lot. Literally everywhere throughout the known universe, every moment, matter seems to spontaneously pop up

I do not know what level you are at in your studies, but I suspect you have not yet studied quantum field theory. Ask one of your professors to explain virtual particles in the context of quantum electrodynamics (QED). Virtual particles are mathematical abstractions, not physical existents in QED. They are a sheer artifice of perturbation theory. QED is an Abelian gauge theory; we start with the QED Lagrangian and we model, for instance, a massless vector particle as a gauge field. The whole artifice is built upon renormalizable quantum field theory with a boost from perturbation theory. Virtual particles are states, e.g., just an internal line on a Feynman diagram. They are, in effect, mathematical abstractions.

The black hole thing is what's causing the problem... *NOTE- this is a simplification... I couldn't explain it in under 50 pages otherwise- so don't go quoting me to anyone who really knows their physics already.

Problem is, as Wolfgang Pauli liked to say, it's not even wrong. Until you study quantum field theory and general relativity in depth, you will benefit from, and most likely enjoy, a wonderful little book by GR expert Robert M. Wald: "Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics," _The University of Chicago Press_, 1994. Most good technical books on these subjects are written, at least, on an advanced graduate level. But the level of this book by Wald is such that a bright undegraduate can wade through it and get a really decent grasp of more esoteric areas as the Unruh effect and Hawking radiation. The author is the same Robert Wald whose "General Relativity" text is a staple nowadays in most advanced courses in general relativity. Wald is brilliant, and very clear writer.

Oh, and on top of that, so much of physics now is probability- nothing can be absolutely known, so newtonian physics is out the door anyway, cause you have a problem measuring in the first place.

You could benefit greatly by supplementing your physics studies with Objectivist epistemology. Probability is an epistemological concept, one which refers to our assessment of what we think we know. The physical world is deterministic, and any lack of knowledge on our part is not due to a supposed inherent randomness in Nature, but rather to the fact that we are not omniscient and, at any given time, there are conditions and processes about which we do not know or understand.

You seem like a bright young student of physics, and you seem to like the subject you are studying. Believe me, I can identify with that. I have a profound love for physics and its history, and I must say that a proper philosophical base has been a wonderful asset over the years in all of my studies. I would suggest concentrating on the technical aspects of physics in the courses you take, and learning a good philosophy like Objectivism to help you evaluate and separate out the good and the bad parts of whatever you learn. Just meant as a helpful suggestion.

[oldsalt]

This probably ought to be under a separate thread, but here I am so I'll ask.

First, let me say that I am totally ignorant of physics. I do, however, find the subject -- and most physicists -- fascinating and make it a point to watch programs aimed at the interested layman. There are propositions made that bother me because I seem to have a different take on the meaning of certain terms used and I think that sometimes it is because these terms are used in a particular, scientific way that I don't know.

For example, the term "infinity" has been used several times in this thread. I've heard physicists use this term as though it were something that actually existed in reality. I come to this term from philosophy, however. In arguing against Zeno's paradoxes, for instance, Aristotle says that just because one can divide space or time in one's mind doesn't mean that there is actually anything infinity large or small, or infinitly long in duration, etc. This is the difference between treating something epistemologically and doing so metaphysically. So, my question: How, in physics, is the concept of infinity used? I understand how it is used mathematically, but do physicists use the term to refer to an actual infinity?

Next, I often wonder about statements about chaos, which seem to mean that we can never know about certain aspects of entities. If an entity has a nature and can only act within that nature, whence chaos? When I think of chaos, I think of unpredictability. It is easy to see this when one considers the actions of humans, which certainly can be unpredictable and, in turn, chaotic. When physicists speak of entities in general, with all of their properties and attributes, do they mean that the stuff of the universe behaves in unpredictable ways (assuming that we understand everything about the entity)? If so, how does this square with the law of identity and the law of cause and effect?

In this thread, arguments have been given for a closed universe -- which arguments I understand to a point and agree with from a strictly philosophic point of view. There are those who talk about many universes, however. My question: If the term "universe" means everything that exists, and the universe is a closed system, how can there be more than one? Is this an instance of a term being used in a special way, or are there physicists out there who think that there can be more than one "everything that exists?"

I'll stop here. I have dozens of such questions, but I'm never in a position to ask anyone who could tell me. Since the terms I'm asking about have been used in this thread, I'm hoping that those of you who are knowledgable will lend a hand (and forgive the imposition!).

Oh, and though I do understand words of more than one syllable, please remember that I AM ignorant of the subject!

[AwakeAndFree]

From... happysteak?

Here's something fun we came up for the questions: "What's in between air molecules and what composes deep space?": energy, that's right, waves! (NOT ether, for Allah's sake)

The question is - waves of what?

A wave is not an entity, but a kind of movement OF an entity. See: air waves, sea waves, sound waves (different kind of air waves).

As I read in a book of Acoustics, there are two kinds of waves: waves who move across a still medium (like at sea), and waves that move with a moving medium (like sound waves).

A wave cannot be a primary - only a property of an entity.

[y_feldblum]

If an entity has a nature and can only act within that nature, whence chaos?

I'm not sure, but I think chaotic means that a slight difference in cause has a very large difference in effect. If you know, based on an entity's current properties, how it will act, in most cases you will be able to approximate how the entity acts given a slight change in its properties. With chaotic systems, however, that kind of approximation breaks down quickly. It's not that the effects are unpredictable, but that they are very difficult to approximate.

[stephen_speicher]

"oldsalt" asks a number of physics-related questions. (Best to be moved to the Science section?)

There is one issue common to all of the questions, a basis which should be understood before dealing with each. It is important to discern (at least) three different categories:

1) Popularizations of physics -- These tend to be a more fantastical perspective on physics, focusing on what seems strange, bizarre, counterintuitive, or contradictory to what the average reader might expect.

2) Theorists -- A relatively small group of theoretical physicists who, for the most part, lack a good epistemological grounding and generally have an alice-in-wonderland sense of metaphysics. These are the few who typically fuel the popularizers mentioned above.

3) Actual physicists -- These people represent the overwhelming majority of real physicists. In their work these are profoundly rational people who focus on facts, physicists whose work of necessity demands a proper epistemology and contact with reality. If you push these guys on the weekend to talk about broader-ranging theoretical principles of physics, many will repeat some of the verbiage which was invented by the theorists in category 2. However, most leave such notions at the doorstep when they enter their lab.

So, unless you work in the field and have regular contact with the actual people doing physics -- if you get your view of physics from various interpreters -- you might think that modern physicists all revel in singularities and trade infinities the way kids trade baseball cards. Not so.

As to infinity: Mathematics is a fundamental tool of physics, and in some regard it is a language in which physics can be expressed. Most physicists are well-grounded in mathematics, even though not as concerned with foundational issues as are many mathematicians. Infinity as a concept of method is used throughout mathematical physics, and is routinely accepted as such. Amongst popularizers and theorists you will often hear of infinities as if they had a metaphysical existence, mostly mathematical singularities (places in the mathematics where operations become undefined or properties are unconstrained) which are then given some sense of physical existence. But, those who are actually doing the physics do not spend their time looking for places where reality is undefined or where properties of entities increase or decrease without bound. It is typically categories 1 and 2 who are guilty of such nonsense, not the real physicsts in category 3.

As to chaos: This concept is often conflated with the notion of metaphysical randomness by the popularizers of physics. The root of chaos theory lies in the fact that, in some cases, extremely small changes in the starting conditions for some physical process can lead to extremely large differences in the result. It is not that there exists some metaphysical randomness in some physical process, but rather that the dynamics are such that our inability to specify the initial conditions with infinite precision leads to difficulty in predicting the outcome of what is, nonetheless, a physically determinstic process. Atmospheric disturbances, turbulent flow in liquids, and some aspects of orbital dynamics are areas where this sort of problem is studied.

As to the universe: This term is bandied about by popularizers and theorists, sometimes so much that it is difficult to nail down a precise meaning in every case. Generally speaking, in cosmology the Big Bang theory literally means that the space of the universe is being created as there is expansion. But there are other cosmologies in which there are multiple universes, with a single universe being that which we are capable of knowing. The term universe is used in so many different ways, is stretched and pulled so far and in so many directions, that, in my view, it is best to just try to understand the notion the theorist is advocating, and do not attempt to connect to a concept of universe at all. With that said, most actual phsyicsts think of the universe as all of that which exists, just as we Objectivists use the term.

May I suggest that any further questions be put in a separate thread in the Science section, mainly so that those interested in the subject will stand a better chance of seeing it there.

[AisA]

Shattered Rose:

The next time you encounter this statement:

Oh, and on top of that, so much of physics now is probability- nothing can be absolutely known, so newtonian physics is out the door anyway, cause you have a problem measuring in the first place.

Ask the speaker if they know this absolutely. It is not likely to change the speaker's mind, but it may encourage others not to swallow this stuff without question.

Good luck with your studies!

[oldsalt]

Dear Mr. Speicher:

Thank you for answering my questions. I do know that popularizers of physics don't always get it right, which is why I used to attend lectures given to the general public by actual, practicing physicists, from whom I've learned a lot about certain basic theories. The biggest problem comes from science documentaries, where some theorists seem to go off the deep end.

I'll direct any further questions to the Science thread. My excitment over finding someone on this forum who is knowledgable about this subject was the cause of my interruption of the discussion. Mia culpa and apologies to the others.

Janet