Does the Universe violate the 1st law of thermodynamics?

[m3]

The 1st law of thermodynamics states that for all changes in an isolated system, the energy remains constant. It's more popularly explained as, "energy is neither created nor destroyed."
So... how did the universe come to exist?

[ubermensch]

do you think that if any of us could answer this question conclusively, we'd be here right now?
there's several theories, most of which you probably know about.

in the big bang/big crunch theory...well, the matter there is never created nor destroyed...it's there, but in a infinately small particle.

if you believe the god created it, well, laws of physics really don't matter to you concerning the creation of the universe..

[tony1234]

I wouldn't worry about it. Seems to me the 1st law is a law about phenomena *in* our universe. It does not purport to apply to the university itself. just because for every part of space, there's a part next to it, doesn't mean that there's a part next to the unverve as a whole. What's true for the parts often is not true for the whole.

Anyway, I bet that new superstring theories violated the 1st law all the time and have particles popping into existence regularly.

[waterj2]

There's also the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to take into account, which can be used to show that if the time span is incredibly small (like on the order of 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001 sec.) you really can't tell how much energy there is, so who knows whether or not it's conserved. As the time span decreases, you can get away with more and more energy. Theoretically, if the Big Bang was pretty much instantaneous, a whole lot of energy could have been "borrowed". At least this is all what my 11th grade physics teacher seemed to be saying.

Unfortunately, science hasn't really figured out the whole "beginning of the universe" mystery quite yet. Head over to GD for more discussion of this matter.

[m3]

interesting ideas, I think that the universe can be considered as an isolated system though. The universe is apparently finite after all.
It seems that the answer presented here is that the 1st can be broken all the time.
Hmm... wouldn't that be an argument for those "free energy" folks?

[manhattan]

::Test post. Please ignore this post. If there are multiposts above, please ignore them too.::

[Boris B]

I'm with tony1234.

To put it metaphorically, the 1st law, to me, is a little bit like human mortality. If you die, you'll never be alive again, but there was a time when you weren't alive, and now you are alive. Being conceived isn't a reverse of mortality, or a reversal of death, because you didn't start out dead. You just weren't alive yet.

A better way to put it might be, the 1st law of thermodynamics doesn't pre-date the universe. It came into force either simultaneously, or after the universe was formed.

------------------
Am I reading Hippocrates right?
He's not just a big box for storing large semi-aquatic mammals, is he?

[pluto]

Fiat lux.

[mipsman]

Physics covers it collective butt in this area by stating that, at the initial singularity, all bets (and laws) are off. By our current universe's laws, there was a violation. But there is no way to know what happened there and then or what laws prevail at a singularity. It is sort of a weak "by definition" explanation.

[galen]

The most advanced thinking is that the net energy of the Universe is zero.

[Triskadecamus]

QUOTE]Originally posted by galen:
The most advanced thinking is that the net energy of the Universe is zero.[/QUOTE]

Providing, of course that your definition of "most advanced" is: “That thinking which most closely coincides with my own.”

There has been a lot of thinking going on about the nature of the anomaly we popularly call the “Big Bang.” (This theory has the distinct disadvantage of having been named by its detractors, and it was neither big, nor a bang.) Given that the first instant of that phenomenon we call time is, in some ways, as “long” as the time since that instant, and the volume of the first pinpoint of space also in many aspects equivalent to the volume of the universe as we see it now, one thing is very clear; we need new words to talk about this.

Planck Time is the current name for the period of time ending when the universe had an interior radius greater than the length physicists believe limits some of the fundamental forces. Prior to that time, interactions between and among objects cannot be described in our current terms, since everything is in the same place. One fundamental property of pretty much everything we observe in our space and time dimension is that they are never in the same place, at the same time. Some of them can’t even be in a particular place at a particular time. Measurement itself is an undefinable term with respect to this phenomenon. Talking about values for the energy of the universe is beyond conjecture, or hypothesis.

The concept currently called “Supersymmetry” in physics is very attractive to many in the study of the elemental forces. It seem very pleasing to suppose that nothing comes from nothing, and everything adds up to a perfectly even, and opposite set of characteristics. It’s tidy. It supports some of the same macro physical concepts (like the first law of thermodynamics) and a fair bit of quantum mechanics. It seems likely to be unifiable, the Holy Grail of Cosmology. Unfortunately, the evidence is not unequivocal. Several particle interactions recently observed seem asymmetric in their common occurrences.


It is all fascinating, and filled with hard math, and soft whimsy. As to which set of incompletely understood hypotheses is the “Most Advanced Thinking,” well, pardon me if your one liner fails to convince me that you have completely perused the evidence you would need to make that statement with anything closely resembling scholarship. I don’t know the answer to the OP question. I have not seen an answer so far that convinces me of its completeness.

Tris


------------------
Imagine my signature begins five spaces to the right of center.

[mrblue92]

Theoretically, if the Big Bang was pretty much instantaneous, a whole lot of energy could have been "borrowed". At least this is all what my 11th grade physics teacher seemed to be saying.If the universe is borrowed, when do we have to give it back? And imagine what the interest payment will be!

I think using the Uncertainty Principle in this matter is fallacious. By the same manner, I could say that the Pink Unicorn turns the light on in my refrigerator when I open the door. Since I can never open it fast enough to see her, I'll never be able to take a picture.

[m3]

That's better. Nobody knows, but we need a special case for the beginning of the universe anyway. At least my question is valid and still being asked. Kind of neat, since some of my motivation was just to be a smart aleck. The rest was genuine curiosity. This may be the best explanation I can get without getting into the math.
If anyone thinks they have a better answer though, I'm listening.

[Konrad]

Just because energy is conserved doesn't mean we had to start out with 0 energy. As long as the universe has always existed with the same energy as it has now we kind out step around this problem. Who says the universe has to have to a starting point?

[m3]

Konrad:
[QUOTE]Who says the universe has to have to a starting point? {/QUOTE]

Isn't the "Big Bang" theory the prevailing comological model among scientists? This seems to imply a starting point to me.

[waterj2]

If the universe is borrowed, when do we have to give it back? And imagine what the interest payment will be!

I think using the Uncertainty Principle in this matter is fallacious. By the same manner, I could say that the Pink Unicorn turns the light on in my refrigerator when I open the door. Since I can never open it fast enough to see her, I'll never be able to take a picture.
The universe is not borrowed, since everything was here beforehand, just all in one spot. And if it was provably impossible to rule out the Pink Unicorn, and there wasn't any better theory available, it wouldn't be so hard to swallow. It's even harder to rule out since the huge clump that existed before the Big Bang could have been sitting around for many billion years waiting for some random chance to "borrow" the energy to split it up.

Either way, I don't understand the theory enough to know how feasible it is. I'm just saying that I've heard it, and it sounds plausible.

[WallyM7]

How can you break a law that doesn't exist?

There were no physical laws at the singularity. Even I know that.

[I am the ONE]

Originally posted by WallyM7:
How can you break a law that doesn't exist?

There were no physical laws at the singularity. Even I know that.

I must be impudent enough to say that I didn't read all of the previous posts. First, allow me to say that modern physics is inadequate to explain gravitation on a sub-atomic level...point being that these equations were simply devised to explain rational phenomenon in an easily experimental context. As for "singularity" and "creation", there is no proof or explaination.

[I am the ONE]

Originally posted by m3:
The 1st law of thermodynamics states that for all changes in an isolated system, the energy remains constant. It's more popularly explained as, "energy is neither created nor destroyed."
So... how did the universe come to exist?

Matter is indeed never created nor destroyed. This would logically lead to the idea that there is ExistencE, whether on this mortal coil or another that causes things to BE. As Einstein explained that the speed of light exists but it is unreachable, so does the universe poke through some previously unrecognized hole and trans-mute it's unbelievable idea into reality. Creation (disregarding the thermodyamic debate) is a reality, however it is explained. No amount of naysaying can disrupt that...this could be a new law of themodynamix

[I am the ONE]

Originally posted by galen:
The most advanced thinking is that the net energy of the Universe is zero.

Entropy itself states that all energy will tend toward randomness unless acted upon by an extenal force. Your most advanced (random) thinking must have an outside force as the controller of this energy. If its force is Zero, however, algebraic rules (quite less sophisticated than quantum mechanics) state that the sum of any number with zero is zero. Therefore the "most advanced thinking" puts the universe at sum total zero. A most unenviable postion for fickle mortals as ourselves. All is negated!

[I am the ONE]

Originally posted by pluto:
Fiat lux.

Is not the essence of life to debate the uncertainty therein?

[I am the ONE]

Originally posted by m3:
The 1st law of thermodynamics states that for all changes in an isolated system, the energy remains constant. It's more popularly explained as, "energy is neither created nor destroyed."
So... how did the universe come to exist?

interesting question...we seem to exist in
some sort of a paradigm. Maybe we will do better than post temeritous questions for the world to try to reconnoiter.

[Triskadecamus]

Originally posted by I am the ONE:
however, algebraic rules (quite less sophisticated than quantum mechanics) state that the sum of any number with zero is zero

Quite a bit less sophisticated. Also incorrect, but I am sure that won't trouble you.

The sum of any number with zero is the number itself. And it isn't algebra it’s arithmetic.

Tris
------------
Never make simple arithmetic errors in a logic slam.


------------------
Imagine my signature begins five spaces to the right of center.

[Konrad]

Isn't the "Big Bang" theory the prevailing comological model among scientists? This seems to imply a starting point to me.

Well, like you said, it's just a theory. Also, just because we consider it the beginning of *our* universe doesn't mean that the energy that created the big bang didn't exist before.

[mrblue92]

The universe is not borrowed, since everything was here beforehand, just all in one spot.Ah, but where did that come from? Spawned from another universe? The hand of God? Or was it just always here? Perhaps our entire universe is a speck of dust on the stomach of a turtle in another universe. Unless God comes down and reveals the answer or we rip through the fabric of space and see who the "man behind the curtain" is, I don't think the question is conclusively answerable.

My personal preference is, "In the beginning, God created..." I'm not saying it's provable or even logical, but, by all means, theorize all you like.

[Smeghead]

While I'm no expert, I DO know that the 1st LofT is among the best-verified rules of physics. We know of nothing that even seems to imply the possibility of violating it. Of course, part of that is probably our bias, but hey.
One serious and semi-popular theory (I think I remember seeing it mentioned in one of Hawking's books) suggests that the universe is constantly collapsing and expanding. Big Bang, then expansion, then collapse, then Big Crunch, and we're back where we started. Of course, this begs the question how did that all start to begin with. But remember, the concept of time probably has no real meaning in the conditions around the Big Bang, so asking about "before" is really meaningless.
And to end this ramble, a word about what is thought happened. Although energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, they can and do interchange all the time. At the Big Bang, it was all energy. As it expanded and cooled, it gradually turned into matter.
That's it. Back to work.

[Jinx]

You see, the First Law was still just the First Bill back then...but then again, I never studied law! ;)

------------------
"They're coming to take me away ha-ha, ho-ho, hee-hee, to the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time... :)" - Napoleon IV