The 2nd law of thermodynamics is not evidence of God

[ratiocinator]

Any addressing of that issue goes beyond what the evidence points to, that this universe had a beginning.

Not really, no. What happens (I'm sure somebody has already pointed this out) is that, if we extrapolate backwards, we run into a situation that would require a unification of quantum field theory and general relativity to know hat happened. Since we don't have such a theory (only hypotheses) it's an unknown.

 

[Brian2]

Not really, no. What happens (I'm sure somebody has already pointed this out) is that, if we extrapolate backwards, we run into a situation that would require a unification of quantum field theory and general relativity to know hat happened. Since we don't have such a theory (only hypotheses) it's an unknown.

Even if a theory existed it would still be speculation and could not be called real science/knowledge.

 

[ratiocinator]

Even if a theory existed it would still be speculation and could not be called real science/knowledge.

No. A theory is a well tested scientific explanation.

 

[ChristineM]

Stephen Hawking said the universe could have come into existence all be itself if the laws of physics were there before the BB.

Hawking hypothesised, so do many other scientists. Andrai Linde hypothesises 10^10^16 other universes that humans can comprehend as universe's, and many many more that are not comprehensible to the human mind. Laura Mersini-Houghton hypothesises that out universe is the result of other universes colliding. Thry have one thing in common, they are all hypothesis.

Does that mean that without those laws there is a need for a God.

No, why would it?

I don't know. There is a lot of speculation around about what might have been, and when you say, "known and accepted" that is probably part of that speculation.

As far as i am aware the basic development of our universe is pretty well understood from the Planck epoch.

I don't think that has anything to do with it.

Jolly good.

 

[ChristineM]

Even if a theory existed it would still be speculation and could not be called real science/knowledge.

Not sure you are truly understanding the meaning of a scientific theory

 

[Revoltingest]

The laws of physics disappear when we get closed to the BB, I am told.

As I see it....
The laws of physics that we know are a work in progress.
They don't describe what happens under some extreme
conditions such as the Big Bang or inside a black hole.

 

[viole]

Apologist William Lane Craig argues the 2nd law of thermodynamics is evidence the universe had an absolute beginning. And whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. This cause must be non-spatio-temporal and non-material since all that is material had a beginning. Ergo, this cause is how God is described, or as Aquinas liked to say, "This is what people call God."

So, let me explain how it is supposed to be evidence of an absolute beginning.

This is because of the tendency of particles to approach equilibrium in closed systems. As a consequence the universe would evolve to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and would therefore be unable to sustain processes that increase entropy and may no longer be exploited to perform work (since work is obtained from ordered molecular motion). As a result, an infinitely-old universe should therefore have reached equilibrium (i.e., maximum entropy) long ago, but it did not, so the universe began at some finite time in the past.

View attachment 52492

In the book "Atheism: The Case Against God", George H. Smith replied as follows:

"Reconciling the Second Law of Thermodynamics with the present state of the universe is not as hopeless as theists like to pretend. To begin with, the Second Law is a statement of statistical probability, and there is nothing inherently contradictory in supposing that a closed system can decrease in entropy or fluctuate between increasing and decreasing entropy states. But this probability, while metaphysically possible, is extremely unlikely, so it is usually ignored in practical applications.

More importantly, however, the Second Law pertains only to closed systems, which, according to many physicists, renders it inapplicable to the universe as a whole. Professor Grunbaum, a physicist, writes:

'An inherent limitation on the applicability of the ... entropy concept to the entire universe lies in the fact that it has no applicability at all to a spatially infinite universe.'

Professor E. A. Milne, commenting on another physicist’s acceptance of the heat-death thesis, writes: 'Jeans’s own studies in the realm of the second law of thermodynamics were all concerned with the kinetic theory of gases, in which the specimen under discussion is supposed walled around in a finite vessel; and to such systems the notion of a heat-death is applicable. But by no means is the same result to be predicted of the whole universe.'

Finally, according to Landau and Evgeny, authors of Statistical Physics: '... in the general theory of relativity the universe as a whole must be regarded not as a closed system, but as one which is in a variable gravitational field. In this case the application of the law of increase of entropy does not imply the necessity of statistical equilibrium.'

Since the concept of entropy can be defined only with reference to closed systems, it cannot legitimately be applied to the universe as a whole. The theist takes a scientific principle derived from a specific context, and attempts to shift this context in order to manufacture a need for god. In the name of science, the theist posits a “god of the gaps,” a god who allegedly fills in the gaps of human knowledge. But gaps of knowledge eventually close, leaving god without a home. The entropy argument is a cosmological argument draped in scientific jargon—but an invalid argument, even when presented in scientific terms, is still invalid."

Smith's rebuttal seems robust to me (although I don't like the way he speaks of theists, i.e., "theists like to pretend". Just because some theists -- viz., apologists -- do it doesn't mean all or most theists do it).

Anyway, I'm eager to hear your thoughts on this.

Since the arrow of time seems to be determined by the increase of entropy, and it is therefore a statistical property of a thermodynamical Universe already with more than one particle, it is a truism that entropy was lower in the past. That is exactly what differentiates the past from the future: the state in which the entropy is lower is what we call past.

So, what the theist is actually saying is: the fact that the entropy was lowest indicate that the Universe had a state in which the entropy was lowest. Ergo, a useless tautology.

But the real nuclear option that destroys every such argument is to invoke the B-theory of time, which is also much more in line with modern physics (relativity), rather than the A-theory (the old, intuitive, Newtonian one), which is what WL Craig uses (obviously).

Under B-theory, the Universe, whose fabric is an actual physical entity (spacetime), is thus a 4-dimensional block, that is not embedded into an external time context, and it is therefore a-temporal, and therefore deprived of anything which requires a pre-existing time context (like past, present, beginning, changing, etc). The BB would not be something of a vanished past, but an event, still ontologically present on that 4-dimentional surface. Together with all other events, including the ones which belong to what we call future.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Magical Wand]

At some point there must be something without a cause, right? I mean, if you keep having causes, all of those causes are gonna need causes. At the very tip of the ice berg, mustn't there come a point where something exists just because it does?

Hi!

Why is it that we can't have an infinite regress of causes? In an infinite regress all effects were caused in the past -- there is no uncaused effect. Ergo, there is no need for an initial cause or an uncaused effect.

 

[Magical Wand]

Stephen Hawking said the universe could have come into existence all be itself if the laws of physics were there before the BB.

Yes, but notice Hawking was talking about his no-boundary proposal when he said this. And the no-boundary model is speculative -- just one pre-big bang model among 30 or so. Many years ago (before he came with up this model), he really claimed that the laws of physics broke down prior to the Big Bang.

Quote: "A singularity is a place where the classical concepts of space and time break down as do all the known laws of physics because they are all formulated on a classical space-time background." (Stephen Hawking, Breakdown of Predictability in Gravitational Collapse)

Other cosmologists followed Hawking's lead at that time:

"Anything at all can emerge from a singularity. The laws of physics do not apply to the split second in which energy or mass emerges from a singularity, and in principle a singularity could emit broken washing-machines, human beings or stars." (John Gribbin, After Cobe and Before the Big Bang, p.124)

"A singularity can be naturally considered as a source of lawlessness, because the spacetime description breaks down “there”, and physical laws presuppose spacetime." (M. Novello and Perez Bergliaffa, Bouncing Cosmologies)

But most cosmologists reject this view today. They do think the laws still applied at the Big Bang and even prior to it.

 

[Magical Wand]

Any addressing of that issue goes beyond what the evidence points to, that this universe had a beginning.

Actually, applying the classical theory to the first moments of the Big Bang goes beyond what the evidence points to since one is using a theory where it cannot be used (viz., in places where the energy is too high to use General Relativity). So, the one claiming the universe had a beginning is speculating rather than basing his knowledge on firm science.

 

[Magical Wand]

Not really, no. What happens (I'm sure somebody has already pointed this out) is that, if we extrapolate backwards, we run into a situation that would require a unification of quantum field theory and general relativity to know hat happened. Since we don't have such a theory (only hypotheses) it's an unknown.

Jackpot!

 

[Magical Wand]

But the real nuclear option that destroys every such argument is to invoke the B-theory of time, which is also much more in line with modern physics (relativity), rather than the A-theory (the old, intuitive, Newtonian one), which is what WL Craig uses (obviously).

Under B-theory, the Universe, whose fabric is an actual physical entity (spacetime), is thus a 4-dimensional block, that is not embedded into an external time context, and it is therefore a-temporal, and therefore deprived of anything which requires a pre-existing time context (like past, present, beginning, changing, etc). The BB would not be something of a vanished past, but an event, still ontologically present on that 4-dimentional surface. Together with all other events, including the ones which belong to what we call future.

Yeah, I'm skeptical of the B-theory (or tenseless view) simply because the flow of time seems to be one of the most evident phenomena I can experience. If this extremely basic experience is wrong, then I'm not sure I can be certain of anything else.

Anyway, the B-theory would invalidate the Kalam in other ways as well. For example, Craig's second argument for the beginning of the universe is that we could never traverse the whole infinite past to reach the present. In the B-theory this isn't a problem since all moments are present -- so one doesn't have to reach any point from any other point; after all, all the points are already there.

But I suppose you're applying the B-theory to the finite-past case only. But this would concede to Craig that the universe had a beginning (at least, in some sense). I'm not willing to make this concession. I think it is worth defending the infinite past view.

In any case, thanks for sharing your knowledge.

 

[John D. Brey]

Apologist William Lane Craig argues the 2nd law of thermodynamics is evidence the universe had an absolute beginning. And whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. This cause must be non-spatio-temporal and non-material since all that is material had a beginning. Ergo, this cause is how God is described, or as Aquinas liked to say, "This is what people call God."

So, let me explain how it is supposed to be evidence of an absolute beginning.

This is because of the tendency of particles to approach equilibrium in closed systems. As a consequence the universe would evolve to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and would therefore be unable to sustain processes that increase entropy and may no longer be exploited to perform work (since work is obtained from ordered molecular motion). As a result, an infinitely-old universe should therefore have reached equilibrium (i.e., maximum entropy) long ago, but it did not, so the universe began at some finite time in the past.

View attachment 52492

In the book "Atheism: The Case Against God", George H. Smith replied as follows:

"Reconciling the Second Law of Thermodynamics with the present state of the universe is not as hopeless as theists like to pretend. To begin with, the Second Law is a statement of statistical probability, and there is nothing inherently contradictory in supposing that a closed system can decrease in entropy or fluctuate between increasing and decreasing entropy states. But this probability, while metaphysically possible, is extremely unlikely, so it is usually ignored in practical applications.

More importantly, however, the Second Law pertains only to closed systems, which, according to many physicists, renders it inapplicable to the universe as a whole. Professor Grunbaum, a physicist, writes:

'An inherent limitation on the applicability of the ... entropy concept to the entire universe lies in the fact that it has no applicability at all to a spatially infinite universe.'

Professor E. A. Milne, commenting on another physicist’s acceptance of the heat-death thesis, writes: 'Jeans’s own studies in the realm of the second law of thermodynamics were all concerned with the kinetic theory of gases, in which the specimen under discussion is supposed walled around in a finite vessel; and to such systems the notion of a heat-death is applicable. But by no means is the same result to be predicted of the whole universe.'

Finally, according to Landau and Evgeny, authors of Statistical Physics: '... in the general theory of relativity the universe as a whole must be regarded not as a closed system, but as one which is in a variable gravitational field. In this case the application of the law of increase of entropy does not imply the necessity of statistical equilibrium.'

Since the concept of entropy can be defined only with reference to closed systems, it cannot legitimately be applied to the universe as a whole. The theist takes a scientific principle derived from a specific context, and attempts to shift this context in order to manufacture a need for god. In the name of science, the theist posits a “god of the gaps,” a god who allegedly fills in the gaps of human knowledge. But gaps of knowledge eventually close, leaving god without a home. The entropy argument is a cosmological argument draped in scientific jargon—but an invalid argument, even when presented in scientific terms, is still invalid."

Smith's rebuttal seems robust to me (although I don't like the way he speaks of theists, i.e., "theists like to pretend". Just because some theists -- viz., apologists -- do it doesn't mean all or most theists do it).

Anyway, I'm eager to hear your thoughts on this.

Very interesting. As a few responders noted, the Big Bang tends to eliminate the infinite universe theory. Einstein's cosmological constant was his way of trying to eliminate the fact that the Big Bang destroyed the idea of an infinite universe. He came up with his cosmological constant by using his great math skills more like a magician, or a circus clown, than a person seriously in search of the truth.

Thankfully, Einstein eventually admitted his cosmological constant was the greatest mistake he ever made.

Another quasi-theological element of the second law of thermodynamics is, ironically, the third law of thermodynamics. Whereas all the statements trying to define the third law appear to be written in a manner that seems like the writer is trying to hide the nature of the law, the law itself, the third law that is, magnifies the theological nature of the second law.

The third law states that in a closed system, which it's more than fair to assume the universe is, the thermodynamic state of the system (in this case the universe) cannot, ever, in any finite number of steps, reach absolute zero.

Think about what that means?

The second law is the law of entropy. And perfect thermodynamic entropy would require that the universe reach perfect equilibrium at absolute zero, where no work, nothing really, can be done or occur.

And yet the third law of thermodynamics states that a closed system that isn't already at absolute zero, i.e., perfect thermodynamic equilibrium, which would seem to be the natural state of all closed systems since they should all get there eventually because of the nature of the second law (in all closed systems entropy eventually rises toward a state of thermodynamic equilibrium where high entropy relates to heat loss and thus loss of energy), can't get there by any finite number of steps.

The third law implies that no closed system should ever be in a state other than absolute zero since there's no law nor even concept for how the state of absolute zero, perfect thermodynamic equilibrium, could be transgressed in the first place, and that once it is, it can't be returned to in any finite number of steps.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

4. If you wish to argue from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it can be useful to also examine the First Law, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. This arguably implies that energy is eternal and thus there is no need for a god. Alternately, this First Law also implies that god had no mechanism to create the energy in our universe.

Your statement seems to magnify the remarkable nature of the second law as it's nestled in the midst of the first and the third.

The first says energy can't be created or destroyed. And the third says that energy can't reach thermodynamic equilibrium, where it's energy devoid of its ability to act like energy (perform work) in any finite number of steps. The third law seems to say that in a closed system energy can never, per the second law, wind all the way down?

But the second law says energy always, inevitably (even if it can increase its ability to do work in one part of space at the cost of another) unwinds (loses its ability to do work).

But if energy always unwinds, according to the second law, why is it not unwound now? And why, according to the third law, can it never unwind completely? The latter, i.e., the third law, seems incredible in light of the second law.

And the first law is just as incredible, if not incredulously so, if we merely ask what energy would be at absolute zero, where it isn't very energetic? In other words, it can't, according to the first law, be destroyed. So what is it if the second law is fully ratified? What is work that's so lazy it can no longer lift a finger even to wag it in the face of theists?



John

 

[epronovost]

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that causality is a feature of the universe.
Causality in the universe is a feature of the universe but causality apart from the universe cannot be determined by science.
If spacetime is a feature of the universe then what came first, the universe or space time?
Both seem to have come at the same instant.
Was spacetime created and expanded from there? Or did spacetime just pop into existence with no cause?
All these things seem to be no more than speculations and will never be known through science or mathematics.

We know that causality happens in our universe. Thus its part of our universe. We don't know of any other universe nor what happens in those speculated universe. If there is another universe, we don't know if causality happens in it. Spacetime is also a feature of the universe. "Universe" is the term we employ to describe everything and anything that happens in and constitute observable reality. It includes spacetime, causality, rain, atoms, my dog Talos, radio waves, etc.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yeah, I'm skeptical of the B-theory (or tenseless view) simply because the flow of time seems to be one of the most evident phenomena I can experience. If this extremely basic experience is wrong, then I'm not sure I can be certain of anything else.

But the flow of time doesn't exist in any physical law and you also have the problem that if time flows then there must be a single moment that we can label 'the present', but defining any single moment across the universe is hampered (even in special relativity) by the relativity of simultaneity. If two people walk past each other on Earth at a relative speed of about 4mph, then what is happening 'now' relative to each of them, at the distance of the Andromeda galaxy, differs by more than 5 days (taking just the special relativity effects and ignoring everything but their relative speed).

But I suppose you're applying the B-theory to the finite-past case only. But this would concede to Craig that the universe had a beginning (at least, in some sense).

Not really because we then have the space-time as a 4-dimensional (timeless) object. It did not (could not possibly) have started to exist. Time is just a direction through the object. A space-time manifold is exactly how general relativity is formulated mathematically.

 

[Magical Wand]

But the flow of time doesn't exist in any physical law and you also have the problem that if time flows then there must be a single moment that we can label 'the present', but defining any single moment across the universe is hampered (even in special relativity) by the relativity of simultaneity.

Yeah, and Craig has produced a new interpretation of Special Relativity called "Neo-Lorentzian interpretation" in which it is possible to reconcile presentism with modern physics. Now, there are many problems with this view (not just from Special, but also from General Relativity) which makes this fringe interpretation unpalatable. Fortunately, there are physicists out there who defend presentism. For example, Lee Smolin argued for presentism in his books (Time Reborn and The Reality of Time). Combine this with the fact that we experience the flow of time, and the motivation for accepting the B-theory vanishes.

Not really because we then have the space-time as a 4-dimensional (timeless) object. It did not (could not possibly) have started to exist. Time is just a direction through the object. A space-time manifold is exactly how general relativity is formulated mathematically.

Correct. In some sense (as I said) the universe is finite (or had a beginning) in the B-theory. It is in the same sense that a ruler has a beginning at the first inch. It is not a beginning of existence, however. And yet, it is finite in the past direction, since the moments do not extend infinitely in that direction.

 

[Clara Tea]

It will help non-scientists to know that entropy means mess. Also, it will help to know that the 2nd law says that mess always increases.

2nd Law of Thermo: Entropy of an entire system always increases. Entropy is a fancy name for mess.

Proof: My bedroom (a state of maximum entropy...mess).

This is what is meant by the term "entire system"....If I clean my bedroom, the rest of the house (that is, the rest of the system) gets messier. We used to call the personal lab of the chairman of mechanical engineering the "entropy lab." We cautioned him about cleaning up his mess.

I'm worried that a hurricane will knock some organization into my bedroom.

If the recently debunked "oscillating universe" idea had been correct, it would have violated the 2nd Law (because it would have pulled together all of the mass and organized it...thus reversing the law). But, the 2nd Law is just an observation, not a real law. So, violating it is no big deal.

Adiabatic cooling is used to create liquid nitrogen and liquid hydrogen (at extremely cold temperatures). Thus....proving that the 2nd law actually works. That is done by organizing (lowering the entropy) of gas by putting it in a powerful magnetic field, cooling it by exposing it to surrounding cold material, then releasing the magnetic field (which allows entropy to increase by disorganizing the gas molecules). Adiabatic means "no heat transfer" (that is, insulated or isolated)...that is Q=0).

Laser cooling works by suspending nuclear plasma in a magnetic field, hitting it with a laser, which energizes the most energetic particles enough to break out of the magnetic field, then releasing the magnetic field. What is left is a quiescent plasma (that is, a quiet plasma that doesn't have highly energetic components).

I agree that statistical equilibrium would be impossible while the gravitational field changes.

However, due to the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, two comoving observers could move apart at the speed of light (and beyond that, a different two comoving observers could move away at faster than the speed of light). Since they are moving away at faster than the speed of light, they will outrun gravity. Thus, we must be concerned only with gravity from objects that are traveling away at less than the speed of light (gravity from other objects is merely outrun). Of course, gravitational fields that existed before are still there. Since matter outruns gravity, we should be able to see a static, unchanging universe (because we can't observe the part that is expanding faster than we could observe it, nor could we feel the effects of its gravitational field, except what it created before it exceeded the speed of light). Thus, the gravitational field that we do observe is static and unchanging. Therefore, statistical equillibrium would be possible.

Coincidentally, E. A. Milne (whom you quoted) wrote one of the thermodynamics books that I studied.

Landau and Evgeny have a point, that space is being created in the universe as entropy increases (which should lower entropy, but I am uncertain if it is more or less than the entropy increase).

God should be able to do anything, including changing physical laws (such as the 2nd Law). If the universe started with a singularity (which I doubt), no physical laws applied, except, perhaps, quantum mechanics. Instead of a singularity, I suspect that the universe was held from total collapse by being in a gigantic quantum state. At least this would have preserved the physical laws as we know them (and perhaps as we don't know them).

The density of matter in the expanding universe is constantly decreasing. It started out as a plasma ball, then space expanding, giving it room to condense into clumps of matter (stars). When it did, trapped light was released, creating the thermal 2.725 degrees Kelvin black body spectrum which peaks in the microwave range at a frequency of 160.4 GHz, corresponding to a wavelength of 1.9 mm. So far, galaxies, solar systems, and other gravitationally bound objects don't expand because they are attracted to each other, and the laws of physics keep them at a certain distance relative to each other. Yet, much of the universe is not strongly gravitationally bound.

SUMMARY (ANSWER):

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is an observation, not really a law. Violating the 2nd Law is no big deal. It is entirely possible that the 2nd Law could be violated by a hypothetical (not ours) universe that oscillates. By "oscillates" I mean makes a big bang then pulls itself together to start all over from the beginning with another big bang. Our universe, once thought to possibly oscillate, doesn't oscillate.

 

[viole]

Yeah, I'm skeptical of the B-theory (or tenseless view) simply because the flow of time seems to be one of the most evident phenomena I can experience. If this extremely basic experience is wrong, then I'm not sure I can be certain of anything else.

If there is one I think I learned about modern physics, is that our experiences/intuitions are completely unreliable. I never experience the indetermination principle either, although it is ultimately omnipresent in everything I observe.

Actually, I can use the fact that our brain does not have an intuition of what seems to be truer than our normal perceived experiences, as evidence of a naturalistic origin of our minds. Tuned for survival, in a classically approximate world, and not for ultimate deep truths about the physical reality..

Therefore, using our experiences and perception to defeat modern concepts in physics, would be like Galileo defeating the existence of quasars because he could not observe them with his telescope.

But I suppose you're applying the B-theory to the finite-past case only. But this would concede to Craig that the universe had a beginning (at least, in some sense). I'm not willing to make this concession. I think it is worth defending the infinite past view.

Actually no. I apply it to all events in spacetime. Which would also imply determinism, since the future is ontologically existent as we speak; and cannot be changed, in the same way the past cannot. I see no convincing reasons for me to treat past and future differently, considering that under B-theory they are ontologically equivalent.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Clara Tea]

One aspect of entropy increase being a statistical thing rather than a necessary thing is that there is a time period, called the Poincare recurrence time, in which it is *guaranteed* that entropy will cycle for a closed system..

Poincaré recurrence theorem - Wikipedia

One condition of "Poincare recurrence time," according to Wikipedia (link above), is "finite volume." The volume of the universe is constantly expanding, and the expansion is accelerating. There appears to be no end of the expansion possible. That is, the old "oscillating universe" theory has been debunked.

However, due to the fact that parts of the universe are expanding away from each other at faster than the speed of light, we lose sight of them (gravity and light from them cannot reach us, though the gravitational field created before and the light emitted before should still reach us (for a while). Eventually, we will lose all contact. At that point, we could say that the universe is in a state of equilibrium, since we see only what is within the speed of light. However, the entire universe is getting less dense. It started out as a plasma ball, then condensed into stars. Those stars get further and further away if they are not gravitationally bound to each other (or to some other mass).