Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Absolute Zero

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by nåte on February 5, 1999 03:43:11 UTC

: : : : How does the second law of thermodynamics play in the matter of existence, god, et all? Anyone? Theories? Opinions? Nate, H, Phil??

: : : : Tön

: : : Energy conversion is a constant prosses, its direction can be altered but its motion (change) cannot be stopped. Or, if this motion could be stopped, the energy itself would dissapear (be destroyed). There is always a direction for energy to take, if one option is closed off due to natural processes (or man made ones), there is always another available, and depending upon the amounts/varieties (mixture) of energy it would take to "change" or cross over, it always takes the option which allows the simplist conversion, meaning the least amount of change. Absolute zero would require absolute stillness, and would require ALOT of "nothingness" empty space, and might be the opposite of a black hole? Anyway, even if such a thing as an area of Azero existed, I do not think we could ever actually measure it, because all our devices measure the configurations of "something" matter. Also, even the presence of the instruments would bring the temp up, however slight, or, the vastness would in fact "swallow" the energy and would indeed destroy it, but that is just another fancy idea like the rest of this. What exactly is the lowest temp man has measured or achieved? What is the temp in space, say behand the moon, and how close is this to Azero? In my opinion, energy itselt is a perpetual motion engine, the total never changes, only its parts change (not the Sum). : : : Just one idea.

: : However, the universe would have to be infinite in volume to have the presence of absolute zero. The fact is, the universe is extrapolating and as it is, the background radiation is exponentially "slowing" in cooling. In other words, for background radiation to be infinitely close to '0' kelvin, the universe would have to be infinitely close to being infinite. : )

: : ***Exactly! : The universe IS infinite, we are talking space, not matter, and background radiation is only the energy, and if it is moving it still shows nothing about the "bounderies of space" only the movement of energy, which may or may not have come from a big bang. Of course, one cannot really say "infinite" in volume because matter takes up some, BUT, "IF" the universe never does stop in any direction "meaning the nothingness" then the matter does nothing to the nothingness, because it just continues no matter how much matter there is, but that part is a whole dif subj. Although I do not think such a thing as Azero exists. AND "if" the universe was finite, and there was a boundery, I would expect Azero to be on the other "side".

First off, I would like to address some of your apparent foundational assumptions supporting your clause. It appears that you support the notion that matter is finite, yet it exists in an infinite space, or "nothingness", as you state. From reading your posts in the past till now, I gather that for some reason you assume that space is nothingness? I would like to qualify this pressuposition if I may.

The 3 spacial dimensions that support the existence of matter in our universe have distinct differences than one would draw in comparison to an absolute void, or nothingness. I am not playing semantics when I suggest to you that nothingness is not space, but rather is nothing. It sometimes is hard to grasp this concept, and I actually had to really think hard about the difference of absolute void vs. what we see as space. I'll grant you that space does seem to be void, but it is not. The existence of space and time is a relevant creation. A dimension of space whether it be X, Y or Z is a logical self defining absolute. Likewise, the absence of all three, conotates the logical absolute opposite of 3 dimensions.

"AND "if" the universe was finite, and there was a boundery, I would expect Azero to be on the other "side". "

Let me suggest to you that it is not logical to assume anything in physical parameters existing in void. No time, no "absolute zero kelvin", no tangible abstract ideas of anything physical!

At the instant of the big bang, the matter as well as the reciprocal of matter (space) was created. S/T continuum, as it expands from the initial singularity, has background radiation existing from the initial expansion and has reached its current temperature due to the 2LOTD. It works much like the following illustration...

Take a single drop of red dye (to simulate total energy in a system) and place it on a plate of glass. This drop of dye is analogous to the energy present at 10^-43 seconds of the b-bang. As the expansion takes place, slowly add pure water drop by drop and notice the dilution of the dye. Now, after so many drops of water, notice the total energy of the system is not depleted, but has gone through a state of equalibrium in that the energy is constantly being "diluted" by the water (expanding space). You will note that: One, the total energy (dye) in the system is unchanged. Two, the level of entropy has dramatically increased exponentially, and Three the permeability and permitivity of space has changed (effect that space has on electromagnetic radiation).

My main point is this, realize that space (even though it seems infinite and void) is something, it is not nothingness, and it is finite. Outside of space nothing can exist. The existence of space is relational to the existence of matter and energy; one is not existant without the other.

Think of this... space is the reciprocal of matter, and energy (motion of EMF) is the reciprocal of time. Time moves at the speed of light and light moves at the speed of time...

Space and Time are really tangible understandible phenomena, just as their reciprocals... It is just hard to grasp the concept.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins