Timeline for Does the second law of thermodynamics contradict the Big Bang Theory?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 2, 2012 at 8:53 | comment | added | Sklivvz | Also, see my answer on physics | |
| Sep 2, 2012 at 8:26 | comment | added | Sklivvz | Please, take a read first, notice the "speculative" heading, then let's move this to the Skeptics Chat. There's no point discussing this topic here and without the proper framing context. | |
| Sep 2, 2012 at 3:01 | comment | added | user1873 | @Sklivvz, There you go using time. The big bang has to be the start of out universe, and the universe (which include the physical laws that must be obeyed, like the laws of thermodynamics) cannot have existed forever, see big heat death. That means that whatever was before, must have not followed our universal laws. You are right that the BB don't have to follow the LoTd, infact they cannot because of the reasons stated earlier. There is the rub though, if we know that they cannot follow the LoTd, then we know that there exists a known violation of it. ADD | |
| Sep 2, 2012 at 0:35 | comment | added | Sklivvz | Note: there is absolutely no claim that the laws of thermodynamics should hold at the big bang. The first relies on the laws of physics being constant in time (which is not necessarily true at the big bang). The second law is a statistical argument which merely states that on average systems arrange from less likely configurations to more likely configurations. Nobody denies that the universe is the most unlikely configuration possible (under the current laws). In fact, quite the contrary. | |
| Sep 1, 2012 at 22:26 | comment | added | Larian LeQuella | @user1873 Again, you are quoting the law, but totally don't understand what it says and actually means. The universe is A system, ad it's energy total is zero. You keep saying "then" which is non-sensical. There was no such thing as time, therefore saying "then" makes no sense. | |
| Sep 1, 2012 at 21:54 | comment | added | user1873 | It breaks the first law as well, "at one time it didn't exist." The 1st law, "The energy of an isolated system is constant" So whatever was/wasn't "at one time", and then there existed the singularity. This system's energy isn't constant. | |
| Sep 1, 2012 at 21:43 | comment | added | Larian LeQuella | @user1873 No, you misunderstand. "I don't know" does not mean that something that is unknown violated any specific laws. You are making an appeal to ignorance fallacy. And if there is no time, there is no "before", so you are envisioning it incorrectly... | |
| Sep 1, 2012 at 21:41 | history | edited | Larian LeQuella | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 characters in body
|
| Sep 1, 2012 at 21:35 | comment | added | user1873 | I think you missed the point. " Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know" The singularity itself (and whatever came before it) is what is breaking the 2nd law. It breaks the fundamental laws. Call it God, a singularity, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster, the problem remains that the universe cannot have existed forever, so whatever came before it must not be of this universe and not subject to its natural laws (including the 2nd law) | |
| Sep 1, 2012 at 21:14 | history | answered | Larian LeQuella | CC BY-SA 3.0 |