Cosmogenesis .

[sutty27]

An eternal universe would be in thermodynamic equilibrium. Ergo the universe is not eternal.

If you're now rejecting the second law of thermodynamics without the slightest evidence, then there's no point talking to you at all.

 

No it wouldn't but I am happy to here an explanation as to why you think it would.

 

A universe with a start point required it to pop into existence from nothing, to date we have no idea if nothing is possible and the laws of physics wouldn't have applied because they didn't exist.

[unbeliever]

No it wouldn't but I am happy to here an explanation as to why you think it would.

 

Hydrogen fusion increases entropy. As entropy increases you approach thermodynamic equilibrium. Therefore after infinity time thermodynamic equilibrium is certain.

An eternal universe must be in thermodynamic equilibrium.

[sutty27]

Hydrogen fusion increases entropy. As entropy increases you approach thermodynamic equilibrium. Therefore after infinity time thermodynamic equilibrium is certain.

An eternal universe must be in thermodynamic equilibrium.

 

It could never happen in an infinite universe with no begging.

 

Explain why you think it would.

[unbeliever]

It could never happen in an infinite universe with no begging.

 

Explain why you think it would.

 

I have no idea what this means.

An eternal universe is infinity old. It takes less than infinity time to reach thermal equilibrium. Therefore an eternal universe must be in thermal equilibrium.

 

 

To address your other point:

Things pop into existence inside the all the time.

From our perspective as outside observers they appear to vanish very quickly. Unless they appear in some very interesting places where space-time is all messed up in which case things get very complicated.

Is a vacuum fluctuation large enough to produce the universe unlikely? Certainly. But when unconstrained by time as we perceive in within our universe, that is unimportant.

What is important is that the total energy (and all other properties) of the vacuum fluctuation, whatever the size of it, should add up to zero.

So our astronomers have spent a lot of time and effort making the necessary observations to measure the total energy of the universe. Well blow me down if it didn't add up to zero.

Edited May 11, 2016 by unbeliever

[sutty27]

I have no idea what this means.

 

The only thing I can see that would cause you confusion is me typing begging instead of beginning.

 

 

 

An eternal universe is infinity old. It takes less than infinity time to reach thermal equilibrium. Therefore an eternal universe must be in thermal equilibrium.

And everything in it moves constantly from one state to another state with nothing gained and nothing lost.

 

 

 

 

To address your other point:

Things pop into existence inside the all the time.

It might appear that way but they don't do it from nothing, they do it within a universe that already exists. Its a massive assumption to think the same would happen if the universe didn't exist and instead we had non existence.

 

From our perspective as outside observers they appear to vanish very quickly. Unless they appear in some very interesting places where space-time is all messed up in which case things get very complicated.

This is happening within an already existing universe, no reason at all to assume it could happen out of non existence.

 

 

 

Is a vacuum fluctuation large enough to produce the universe unlikely? Certainly. But when unconstrained by time as we perceive in within our universe, that is unimportant.

Vacuum fluctuations couldn't exist in the absence of a vacuum. If you are now saying that the visible part of the universe that we can see was formed by the infinite universe that already existed, then I would agree with you.

 

 

What is important is that the total energy (and all other properties) of the vacuum fluctuation, whatever the size of it, should add up to zero.

So our astronomers have spent a lot of time and effort making the necessary observations to measure the total energy of the universe. Well blow me down if it didn't add up to zero.

 

Vacuum fluctuations can only happen if the universe exists, if at some point it didn't exist then there wouldn't have been a vacuum so no fluctuations.

 

The universe being everything that exists, all matter, energy and empty space.

[unbeliever]

And everything in it moves constantly from one state to another state with nothing gained and nothing lost.

 

 

On the contrary. Many processes are one-way unless extra energy is supplied.

 

Order is lost. That's what entropy means. It is a measure of disorder. Stars burning hydrogen reduces order and increases disorder (entropy). It is a one way process and it leads to thermal equilibrium.

An eternal universe would therefore be in thermal equilibrium.

[sutty27]

On the contrary. Many processes are one-way unless extra energy is supplied.

Gravity should do the trick.

 

 

 

Order is lost. That's what entropy means. It is a measure of disorder. Stars burning hydrogen reduces order and increases disorder (entropy). It is a one way process and it leads to thermal equilibrium.

An eternal universe would therefore be in thermal equilibrium.

 

Its only a way one processes to you because you can't think of anything that could reverse it. Yet you can imagine non existence even though its never been observed and we don't know that its possible and you can imagine existence coming out of non assistance even though you don't know the mechanism which would cause it.

[unbeliever]

Gravity should do the trick.

 

 

No. Sorry, but no. That's not remotely how it works.

This one is called the conservation of energy.

 

Its only a way one processes to you because you can't think of anything that could reverse it.

 

No it's a one way process because the laws of physics say so. Not a hint of speculation in that one. As I said it's celled the second law of thermodynamics. You can look it up if you like.

 

Yet you can imagine non existence even though its never been observed and we don't know that its possible and you can imagine existence coming out of non assistance even though you don't know the mechanism which would cause it.

 

I've explained the mechanism. I'm sure it sounds implausible to you. But this is physics. It does not run on feelings in your gut. It runs on maths and measurements.

 

 

An eternal universe would be in thermal equilibrium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_paradox

Edited May 11, 2016 by unbeliever

[truman]

Gravity should do the trick.

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

How does gravity add energy to something?

[sutty27]

No. Sorry, but no. That's not remotely how it works.

This one is called the conservation of energy.

 

You wanted a mechanism which would reverse the process which turn quarks into all sorts of matter, gravity will do just that.

 

 

No it's a one way process because the laws of physics say so. Not a hint of speculation in that one. As I said it's celled the second law of thermodynamics. You can look it up if you like.

No they don't.

 

 

I've explained the mechanism. I'm sure it sounds implausible to you. But this is physics. It does not run on feelings in your gut. It runs on maths and measurements.

You haven't explained how the universe emerged from non existence.

But you have explained how an infinite universe that as always existed created the matter we can see.

 

So back to the question you have failed to answer, how did everything come into existence from nothing and what mechanism cause it.

 

I know about the conversion of matter to energy and energy to matter within the universe. I know a little bit about vacuum fluctuation within a the universe.

 

I want to know how energy and matter are created out of nothing.