Active Users:1121 Time:23/11/2024 12:13:08 AM
That makes it more complex, but I agree the same basic problem persists. Joel Send a noteboard - 07/10/2009 12:11:07 PM
Kinetic Energy isn't a conserved quantity, energy is (barring time zero of course) and so is momentum, but not kinetic energy. Entropy is a non-conserved quantity too, barring time zero again. Though in any steady-state model entropy over an infinite period of time does go down occassionaly. Again, in a steady-state, because if you take a deck of cards in an order and shuffle it, it's entropy will increase, but if you shuffle it enough times, it will return to it's orginal state. This principle leads a lot of us to believe, and God I hate this term, that the 'multi-verse' may be a steady state system. Even there though, you do end up back at the 'where the f did it originally come from' issue.

We can approach it on that basis, but something must still account for the transformation of potential energy into kinetic, and, once again, there's nothing to do so in the Big Bang. And yes, the "multi-verse" (which I agree is an awful term; the whole point of the term "universe" is that it's all encompassing, so there's only one, by definition) does simply dodge the issue. We can assign the Big Bang to the result of some a priori action in a larger realm, but at some point explaining THAT hypothetical realm is still reduced to an enigma.
Lot's of people play with a 'temporary quantum flux' thing as the origin reason, since energy only has to be conserved over a specific ratio of time to energy and that time is governed by the fundamental constants, which might not be the same outside our 'universe', but then you still fall into the 'so where'd that other stuff come from' issue. But it might explain our universe's origins, under the 'over an infinite period of time it shall rain snickers bars' rule of quantum mechanics.

It might, but then it's just a special case of a larger phenomenon; the Big Bang isn't as "big" as we presume. We still need a First Cause, whether in this "universe" or another of which it's only part. This is also the kind of thing that REALLY pisses me off at physicists who know better; you don't assert a COMPLETELY unobservable, unverifiable and unreproducible theorem and call it "science" just to avoid the supernatural, because it doesn't avoid the supernatural at all, nor is it science. Likewise, just because saying, "the pulled-out-of-my-button particle explains this force" resulted in that particle being experimentally observed the first few times doesn't mean it always will. Give me a better REASON than "because my theory requires it. " Or start conducing experiments in search of the Flying Spaghetti Monster; one mans conjecture is as good as anothers.... :rolleyes:
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
Do you think there's some kind of spiritual substance in the universe? - 14/09/2009 02:42:22 PM 820 Views
no, it is mostly hydrogen *NM* - 14/09/2009 02:43:47 PM 246 Views
No *NM* - 14/09/2009 03:01:32 PM 224 Views
not a chance *NM* - 14/09/2009 03:23:02 PM 233 Views
yes (in as much that we could choose to define it that way) - 14/09/2009 03:31:40 PM 614 Views
No *NM* - 14/09/2009 05:14:33 PM 226 Views
Wouldn't spiritual and substance be mutually exclusive? - 14/09/2009 05:27:09 PM 551 Views
Re: Wouldn't spiritual and substance be mutually exclusive? - 14/09/2009 06:20:45 PM 528 Views
I think there is definitely a spiritual force that underlies the unity of all things - 14/09/2009 06:11:01 PM 564 Views
That sounds very like gnosticism in many ways. - 18/09/2009 12:17:51 PM 572 Views
No. *NM* - 14/09/2009 07:06:59 PM 222 Views
define "spiritual'. - 14/09/2009 07:36:18 PM 498 Views
Rum. - 14/09/2009 08:25:46 PM 555 Views
YES! *NM* - 16/09/2009 02:10:55 PM 254 Views
How are we not married? *NM* - 19/09/2009 04:10:13 AM 230 Views
Bigamy laws. *NM* - 19/09/2009 03:49:59 PM 211 Views
My Achilles heel! *NM* - 19/09/2009 07:30:06 PM 234 Views
Timing *NM* - 21/09/2009 12:51:37 PM 224 Views
My Achilles ankle! *NM* - 21/09/2009 08:14:42 PM 240 Views
Your Face. *NM* - 21/09/2009 08:21:44 PM 223 Views
My Achilles face! - 07/10/2009 09:40:36 PM 451 Views
No *NM* - 14/09/2009 09:09:16 PM 213 Views
No *NM* - 14/09/2009 09:31:14 PM 228 Views
Yes, vodka. *NM* - 14/09/2009 10:02:19 PM 212 Views
Substance? - 14/09/2009 10:08:04 PM 515 Views
Yeah, boobs. - 15/09/2009 01:51:44 AM 500 Views
Not the way I'd put it, as jh notes, but unquestionably. - 15/09/2009 03:17:22 PM 542 Views
Look, don't put words in my mouth. - 15/09/2009 04:50:13 PM 571 Views
Sorry. - 15/09/2009 05:14:10 PM 500 Views
Re: Sorry. - 17/09/2009 09:20:58 PM 473 Views
People over-complicate this, it's a sort of animal abuse - 15/09/2009 09:03:01 PM 530 Views
Nicely put. *NM* - 17/09/2009 01:57:44 AM 206 Views
Very nicely put. *NM* - 17/09/2009 06:57:57 PM 210 Views
A sublte nuance most modern materialists miss. - 18/09/2009 12:21:33 PM 751 Views
I think there may be platonic forms defining purpose - 16/09/2009 06:27:36 AM 487 Views
The material universe precludes a purely natural cause. - 18/09/2009 12:04:16 PM 621 Views
One little correction - 20/09/2009 12:34:13 AM 629 Views
That makes it more complex, but I agree the same basic problem persists. - 07/10/2009 12:11:07 PM 659 Views
Nay. - 20/09/2009 07:04:47 AM 487 Views
Re: Nay. - 07/10/2009 11:55:28 AM 543 Views

Reply to Message