NationStates Jolt Archive

Now then, I only have one simple question to Big Bang theorists, IF you are truly big bang theorists then you must abide by science, if that is true, then here is the question. If the scientific law states matter cannot be created nor destroyed, but you say it was a single dense ball of matter that exploded throwing the universe into its current ever-expanding orbit, then where did that matter come from if nothing was there before it? This opens the question that if your scientific law is true, than your own theory suggests a being higher than that of your scientific law. IF your law is not true, than that makes your claim non-legitimate, therefore discarding it. I DO NOT wanting this thread turning into a bashing of Big Bang V. Creationism narrow minded conversation of just saying "Creationism is right! If you don't believe that than your stupid!" if you have something to say, please have facts to back it up.

Oh, for someone's sake.


Evolution has NOTHING to do with the creation of the universe. Totally different subjects. You want answers there, go bother some astrophysicists.

The Big Bang has fuck-all to do with the GTE. Do some research before spouting your mouth off.

Besides, you know almost nothing about what the Big Bang was. I'll leave the explanation to someone with more knowledge for physics who isn't pissed because they've seen this "argument" around one thousand times.

I am sorry, I have made the proper topic adjustments.

:headbang:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=415384

Second paragraph... like I didn't see this one coming a mile away... :rolleyes:

http://pics.livejournal.com/quelconque/pic/000026dg

"where did that matter come from if nothing was there before it?"

This assumes that there's a such thing as "before" the big bang.

Somebody ask for an astrophysicist? Well, I passed the degree, but it was a long time ago...

Essentially, matter can be spontaneously generated. This - in much simplified language - is according to uncertainty theory, which postulates that one can never be certain of an object's position AND momentum. If we know the momentum, then we cannot know the position, ie its location has a probability distribution. Given that position is uncertain, there is a probability that any space may host a particle. So, vacuum isn't empty, but instead is a well of potential particles and energies.

Um, that doesn't seem quite right - any other physicists who can rescue me?

Basically the answer to this is that we have no evidence to show that the principle of conservation of energy applied during the early stages of the big bang. This does not necessarily mean that the big bang is a falsehood, but opens the possibility that the principle was created as part of the later stages of the big bang.

The Big Bang has fuck-all to do with the GTE. Do some research before spouting your mouth off.

Besides, you know almost nothing about what the Big Bang was. I'll leave the explanation to someone with more knowledge for physics who isn't pissed because they've seen this "argument" around one thousand times.

I agree I originally posted the wrong topic title, but I do know what I am talking about.

The big bang theory is one made by science that the universe was created by one single dense ball of matter that, under great pressure, exploded. Then, the fragments pulled and melded together from the psuedo-gravity created by the explosion in the vaccuum of space. The planets then set themselves in exclusive orbits, and have since been floating farther from the epicenter of the explosion, classified by science as the red shift.

Somebody ask for an astrophysicist? Well, I passed the degree, but it was a long time ago...

Essentially, matter can be spontaneously generated. This - in much simplified language - is according to uncertainty theory, which postulates that one can never be certain of an object's position AND momentum. If we know the momentum, then we cannot know the position, ie its location has a probability distribution. Given that position is uncertain, there is a probability that any space may host a particle. So, vacuum isn't empty, but instead is a well of potential particles and energies.

Um, that doesn't seem quite right - any other physicists who can rescue me?

i think what you are struggling towards here is quantum mechanics; wherein it is possible for a positive charge to suddenly appear out of the vaccum, but it is always balanced by the appearance of a negative charge elesewhere, yes?

To the thread starter.

You still know fuck-all about the Big Bang. You set up a strawman.

Short answer: We don't know where it came from

Long Answer: We don't know where it came from, and may never know, but will continue logical inquiry into this question.

i think what you are struggling towards here is quantum mechanics; wherein it is possible for a positive charge to suddenly appear out of the vaccum, but it is always balanced by the appearance of a negative charge elesewhere, yes?
I think so. Unfortunately, I was a lazy swine at uni and only just passed QM. And that was about five years ago.

I think so. Unfortunately, I was a lazy swine at uni and only just passed QM. And that was about five years ago.

Damn lazy astrophysicists, leaving all the hard questions to us lazy ex-philosophy students.

i think what you are struggling towards here is quantum mechanics; wherein it is possible for a positive charge to suddenly appear out of the vaccum, but it is always balanced by the appearance of a negative charge elesewhere, yes?

Thank you for both your non-degrading inputs. I do ask though, although I am no where near quantum mechanics and/or astro physics, you say that an electron or another energy particle can appear randomly in space, but, everything has to come from somewhere or another. Even if, by all accounts, it's "suddenly occuring".

OK. I'll try and rescue you in layman's terms (I am a philosopher of science, not an astrophysicist, but as these matters weigh heavily on ontology it is something we study, discuss and argue for centuries about.)

Matter only probably exists according to quantum mechanics. There are possibilities of any point in space being occupied by matter at any given time. The concept that matter can not be created or destroyed is outdated and has been discarded for more than a century now.

Most people have heard of anti matter, although I would thingk that the majority consider this to be something from science fiction, Well it isn't it exists right here, right now. (Wherever here is and whenever now is.) Essentially there is a chance of a particle and anti particle pair appearing anywhere at any moment. These are called virtual particle pairs. Now if something happens to one of the pair (like falling into a black hole) then the other member of the pair becomes real, as they can no longer cancel out.
So matter can be created from nothing. However this does not explain the big bang.

The point about the big bang is that it is the start of the universe. There is no before, no cause, no anything, not even space or time for nothing to be in. There are theories about membranes interacting that caused a disturbance in one of these membranes which is what we now call the big bang. Equally valid, however, would be an assertion that God caused the big bang. However as there was no universe before hand nor time as we consider it, then it is unknowable.

Thank you for both your non-degrading inputs. I do ask though, although I am no where near quantum mechanics and/or astro physics, you say that an electron or another energy particle can appear randomly in space, but, everything has to come from somewhere or another. Even if, by all accounts, it's "suddenly occuring".
Yes. Ish. Ugh. The particle in question isn't coming from anywhere, it's simply a potential. The mere possibility of its existence is sufficient to provide a source of energy, for instance.

A hundred dead physicists are turning in their graves as I write this. Now, if we could just apply a dynamo and tap that energy...

EDIT: Alien Born to the rescue

First of all, with the 'big bang' theory matter is not necessarily created. Some theories say that it was simply compressed into a one dimension singularity which either exploded, or was pulled apart by the lack of anything everywhere affecting the speck of everything no where. Others think that it could just be be a physical manifestation of energy and that the two are interchangeable so that mass is energy.

There is a new theory that I don't know much about called 'brane theory' which goes something along the lines of the universe was created when the branes of dimensions overlapped.

The concept that matter can not be created or destroyed is outdated and has been discarded for more than a century now.


Then my question is, WHY IS IT STILL IN OUR DARN TEXTBOOKS!? ARG, THESE PEOPLE NEED TO UPDATE THESE THINGS!

Then my question is, WHY IS IT STILL IN OUR DARN TEXTBOOKS!? ARG, THESE PEOPLE NEED TO UPDATE THESE THINGS!
Ah. That explains it. Do not rely on textbooks for science. They suck, one of the reasons being that creationists go batshit insane whenever they see something in a textbook that contradicts their belief.

Matter can be created/destroyed. ENERGY cannot.

From experience, I can say that everything you learn in physics is a lie. Go up a level in education and you'll learn a new interpretation too complicated for lower levels.

This opens the question that if your scientific law is true, than your own theory suggests a being higher than that of your scientific law.

Why does it have to be a 'being'? This is the part I really don't get. Why does the first cause have to be intelligent? Judging by the rest of nature, it seems more likely that the first cause, assuming there was such a thing, was just another mindless natural process.

I wonder:

Why does it have to be only one "being" in the first place. It is possible mathematically to have an infinite number of dimensions and universes, so isn't it possible to have an infinite number of deities as well?

Okay, the basic formula of the uncerainty principle is:

Δx + Δm ≥ h/2

Where Δx is the uncertainty in position, and Δm is the uncertainty in momentum. H/2 is the Plank constant divided by 2, and it is the smallest amount of uncertainty that MUST exist. To simplify this so that I won't have to go into too much detail, we know that position is spacial, and according to some of Einstein's later theories, space and time are inseparable. Thus, we can sub in Δt for Δx, because time and space are not separate entities. Also, momentum is, for all intensive purposes, interchangable with energy, and energy is most certainly interchangable with mass. So, we can sub in ΔE for Δm to get:

Δt + ΔE ≥ h/2

Which now shows us that there must be at least some uncertainty as to the given amount of energy in a system at any specific time. This allows for virtual particles, particles which exist for such a fleeting amount of time, they escape the "eye of reality".

Now, we know from observative evidence that whenever this happens, a particle of matter and antimatter are created. They obey this law, because they eliminate each other quite promptly. There are situations where the extreme force of attraction between these 2 particles can be superceded, such as the extreme gravity of a black hole. This actually truly defies the conservation of mass, as either a peice of matter is created or a peice of antimatter is. The force in the initial singularity of the big bang could have been great enough, and it appears matter one the conflict.

It is actually not impossible for there to still be a singularity at the center of the explosion where the original antimatter conregated. This would lead logically to one theory of physics, that the universe we live in may actually be a gargatuan black hole. Of course, virtual particles aren't the only case of the violation of this law, but they are the most common.

Actually, I must correct myself. There is another case in which virtual particles appear, but they function in such a strange way that they are irrelevent to the big bang. That would be the formation of weak vertor bosons during elementary particle decay.

Yeah. That looks familiar. Horribly familiar.

To answer a few questions that densely packed sphere of mater has been there since the beginning of time

Oh and to any Atheist out there he is a good websight http://www.atheists.org/

Now then, I only have one simple question to Big Bang theorists, IF you are truly big bang theorists then you must abide by science, if that is true, then here is the question. If the scientific law states matter cannot be created nor destroyed, but you say it was a single dense ball of matter that exploded throwing the universe into its current ever-expanding orbit, then where did that matter come from if nothing was there before it? This opens the question that if your scientific law is true, than your own theory suggests a being higher than that of your scientific law. IF your law is not true, than that makes your claim non-legitimate, therefore discarding it. I DO NOT wanting this thread turning into a bashing of Big Bang V. Creationism narrow minded conversation of just saying "Creationism is right! If you don't believe that than your stupid!" if you have something to say, please have facts to back it up.
whatever was 'before' the big bang (if there was such a thing, as someone else said) doesn't have to be a 'higher being' as you put it. why must it be such a thing?

there are many theories about what came before the big bang. one common one (the only one i know anything about) is that the universe expands, slows, cools, begins to retract, collapses on itself, becomes a super-dense thingy of matter & energy (& everything), and does it all over again. stephen hawkins had some idea to do with 42 plains of something before the bang, but i can't for the life of me remember what that was all about though :confused:

Now then, I only have one simple question to Big Bang theorists, IF you are truly big bang theorists then you must abide by science, if that is true, then here is the question. If the scientific law states matter cannot be created nor destroyed, but you say it was a single dense ball of matter that exploded throwing the universe into its current ever-expanding orbit, then where did that matter come from if nothing was there before it?

M theory:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html

Basically, some of our current universe broke off of one of the other universe's membranes in the form of a tiny amount of highly concentrated matter. It's multi-verse theory. It's still in it's infancy, but a lot of it makes sense, and the numbers add up.

Matter can be created/destroyed. ENERGY cannot.

Hate to break it to you, but matter and energy are interchangable. If one can be created and destroyed, then so can the other.

I'll insert into here a blurb that I posted back in a thread a while back... It seems kind of relevant.



The history/development of the Big Bang Theory goes, as far as I know, as follows.

The initial impetus for some sort of theory were the equations of general relativity. According to general relativity, a static universe was impossible - it had to be either expanding or contracting.

Einstein tried to mess with the equations and put in a "fudge factor" to make the universe static; but soon after, observations of galactic reshifts pretty conclusively confirmed that the the universe was, in fact expanding, since all galaxies seemed to be moving away from us proportionally to their distance from us.

(Potential exception - if for some reason light passing through "empty space" is somehow redshifted, this would mean that galactic redshifts roughly proportional to distance do not imply that galaxies are receding. However, as far as we know so far, light passes through empty space unchanged; if future experiments show that empty space in fact ever so slightly redshifts light passing through it, then that would most likely call for most likely scrapping or at the very least significantly revising Big Bang theory.)

That left several possibilities.

1) Matter is constantly being created and is expanding out, with no "beginning" necessary. The universe could look roughly the same no matter how far back you look, if matter was slowly being created and forming into galaxies and expanding out. (Steady-state theory)

2) The universe has been expanding for as long as it has existed - this would mean that at the beginning of time, the universe had some size, which is constantly expanding.

3) The universe had been contracting, and then changed direction and is now expanding.

4) Other exotic options I can't think of right now; I'm sure there are some.

The steady-state theory was disproven by the observation that as you look further away (i.e. looking at events that happened further back in time), the universe looks different, meaning that it is in fact changing markedly over time. This didn't conclusively disprove it, since of course it is possible for the hypothetical matter-generation to result in a change over time, but it significantly undercut it - it began to seem more and more like an ad hoc assumption.

Options 2 and 3 both have the same structure - they differ in what happened "before" the expansion. Option 2 would claim that the expansion is all there was, there was no "before," while option 3 would posit that there isn't a need for such a "beginning," there could have been contraction before then.

From then on, the modus operandum was pretty simple - use general relativity to "trace back in time" the universe and see from where it could have gotten to where it is now.

For example, looking at the motion of the galaxies, scientists showed that it was impossible for the galaxies to have simply flown close to each other; calculating where they came from, they seem to come from the same point ("point" as far as galaxies go - close enough so that they could not have been separate if passing so close to each other.)

The observations of the Cosmic Background Radiation pushed the start of the expansion even further back - they were a significant prediction of Big Bang Theory.

The more we look and the more we figure out things about what the universe was like when it was that small - we can find an age, for example, we can calculate what would have happened at a certain size and how long ago that would have been, what the universe was like at some other size and when that was. It's got supporting evidence down to a certain small size (and thus time in the past)- don't know what that size is off the top of my head.

The "singularity" that everyone considers "assumption of the Big Bang theory" is an extrapolation of that last bit into the past. We don't know how accurate that extrapolation is, since nobody has really any clue how the universe would have worked at that point - it would have been small enough for quantum effects to significantly matter, and yet massive enough and moving quickly enough for relativity to make a difference. We know for sure that none of the theories we have would work in that situation - relativity and QM are incompatible, but yet both would need to be applied there. Just like we really don't know what happens at the center of a black hole, we don't really know what happened at that first instant, if there was a "first" instant and not just the continuation of some previous cycle.

After that point we're not really sure whether it came from a true singularity as opposed to just "almost-a-singularity", or whether it did some of the screwy things that String Theory would predict/allow, or something else.

However, from the cosmic background radiation and from the motion of the galaxies and from general relativity, we can be fairly sure that at one point the universe was in fact very very small.

That's the current status of the Big Bang theory, or at least the parts that we are fairly certain about, which have followed from experiment and observation.


Currently, we have no clue how that "singlularity" came into being - we know that matter can be created if an equal amount of antimatter is, and though there have been some hints that maybe somewhere there's a slight slight asymmetry that maybe could give allow matter-antimatter creation to have made the universe, possibly, there really is no definitive body of knowledge about "how exactly is the big bang possible???" Somehow, either the conservation of energy is violated (we don't know how or why) or there wasn't an actual singularity and there was some "before" that takes away the necessity of a COE violation. We don't know. We know that our conception of the laws of physics is wrong somewhere, but we don't know how exactly.

Neither in quantum mechanics nor theory of relativity, is the spontaneous creation of matter explained. However, matter is created, but not out of nothing. At our current point of understanding and level of knowledge, the tiny nugget that spontaneously exploded into the Big Bang had to have been put there by some higher being. That does not however, disqualify the Big Bang thoery nor does it make creationism correct.

I'm dissapointed, only one person has suggested that the matter needn't be created, that the universe always has and always will exist.

the tiny nugget that spontaneously exploded into the Big Bang had to have been put there by some higher being I don't know about it HAVING to. The point is we don't really know where the first point of the big bang originated, nor why it occurred. But that's hardly a reason to leap the conclusion that "God did it".

Neither in quantum mechanics nor theory of relativity, is the spontaneous creation of matter explained. However, matter is created, but not out of nothing. At our current point of understanding and level of knowledge, the tiny nugget that spontaneously exploded into the Big Bang had to have been put there by some higher being. That does not however, disqualify the Big Bang thoery nor does it make creationism correct.
Matter is created out of energy. And quantum mechanics knows this well. In colliders, in both the US and Europe, this is exploited to look back to the first moments of the universe when it was nearly 2 trillion degrees.

They accelerate heavy atoms to near the speed of light and then collide them. Now since there's mostly just space a lot more nothing happens than one might think. But every now and then they pass through each other. They don't really collide like cars might. They're so small, so fast, and for the most part pretty empty they just pass through. But they're sort of sticky in a way. And as the nuclei pass, they each give up some of their kinetic energy, which gets left behind. So there's this little pocket of space, and it's got more energy than it should have. And well, nature just can't stand that. So that pocket of space leaks the energy back out as a bunch of very hot, very small bits matter. As energies get high enough, with laws of the universe that are friendly enough, they may even create extremely small blackholes (I think there's a candidate or two, but unconfirmed). These, should we grow expert at creating them, and ever more powerful machines, will allow us to probe the deeper mysteries of quantum gravity. They might even allow us to detect gravity leaking into an adjoining universe!!

And as far as our current thinking about the big bang goes, there are a number of theories. So far as I know, no cosmologists have thrown up their hands and down their pencils declaring, "That's it. It must be Providence!"

So why do text books say matter can't be created or destroyed? Because it's true like newton's laws are true. For almost any situation your in, that's going to be the rule. And if you're not in that situation, if you're the one responsible for the numbers, you'll know better. Also, textbooks in america (maybe everywhere) are a big scam.

The general theory nowadays is that the universe is in a constant cycle of big bangs, exploding and then imploding into a single point over and over again (with imploding being known as 'the big crunch'). It is highly possible that the universe had no beginning, which is certainly supported by the nature of matter and energy. A concept hard to deal with whether your religious or an aethiest like myself, but that's probably because our minds have been conditioned into our current perception of things always having beginings and endings.

Anyway, I don't see how the spontanious creation of the big bang could be used as an arguement against aethiesm, because the same things would apply to the creation of god. In fact, it would make even less sense because crude matter appearing out of nowhere makes a lot more sense than an intelligent being appearing out of nowhere. I think they are being a little bias in their application of critisism.

There's a film out this weekend that will explain this all...

curious:

How much energy was released by this Big Bang?

or... how much would be sufficient to lead to the composition of the known universe?

Now then, I only have one simple question to Big Bang theorists, IF you are truly big bang theorists then you must abide by science, if that is true, then here is the question. If the scientific law states matter cannot be created nor destroyed, but you say it was a single dense ball of matter that exploded throwing the universe into its current ever-expanding orbit, then where did that matter come from if nothing was there before it? This opens the question that if your scientific law is true, than your own theory suggests a being higher than that of your scientific law. IF your law is not true, than that makes your claim non-legitimate, therefore discarding it.

There was no "before". Time didn't exist before the Big Bang [shouldn't that be Big Splash, given recent findings from the CERN boys?] any more than 'length' or 'height' existed. It's like asking what is "outside" the universe - the question itself doesn't make sense. It's like asking for the width of a point.

Obviously theoretical physicists do have operationalised ways to dicuss this issue, but I rather suspect that, like me, you are not a theoretical physicist.

Now then, I only have one simple question to Big Bang theorists, IF you are truly big bang theorists then you must abide by science, if that is true, then here is the question. If the scientific law states matter cannot be created nor destroyed,

In a closed system, Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but only change form (from one to another)... First Law of Thermodynamics.


but you say it was a single dense ball of matter that exploded throwing the universe into its current ever-expanding orbit,

Actually, you're not dealing with strict "matter" here in this theory, but a conglomeration of exotic energies and matter...


then where did that matter come from if nothing was there before it?

They're not there yet.... It is part of the reason theoretical astrophysicist are looking for the "Universal Theory" to equate different theoretical aspects so as to explain how the "bang" occured in the first place.... Mind you, this does not state "nothing before it"... The Theory does not go that far... They have not reached the "zero-point" where that question needs to be answered yet... They are still only seconds into the initial "bang" which caused the expansion...

This opens the question that if your scientific law is true, than your own theory suggests a being higher than that of your scientific law.[/quote]

This is a "why" question... Big Bang doesn't look for "whys" they look for "hows"... That's the difference.... Science is about looking at a mechanism, let's say a clock, and figuring out how it works... It's not their job in this to figure out who built it...


IF your law is not true, than that makes your claim non-legitimate,

The "Law" is true... Thermodynamics stand as a proven law by which the universe operates as a mechanism.


therefore discarding it.

Assuming the existance of a "Creator" that would make the universe as it is physically known "non-closed" and thus the application of Thermodynamics would stand, since the big-band would be an open event in association with interaction of other external energies, and non-applicable to the first law (which only applies to closed system)... Thus, the evidence of such a "greater" picture of events, such as the presence and existence of a 'creator' in a higher 'realm'... Would still apply in the First Law.


I DO NOT wanting this thread turning into a bashing of Big Bang V. Creationism narrow minded conversation of just saying "Creationism is right! If you don't believe that than your stupid!" if you have something to say, please have facts to back it up.

Well, that is good...

I am surprised that no one has used this quote:

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."

As far as time and the The Bang, Time (being time and all) HAS to have a beginning. Was the beginning at the Big Bang? I don't know, but if it was, then anything that "existed" before hand is inconsequential. Anything that existed (and I hate to use that word since it is related to time) would not have followed the same rules of nature that we use today. Many of the laws of time, space, and matter have time as a component, therefore taking out time as part of the equation effectively changes the laws of the universe making it POSSIBLE that there was matter created spontaneously from the Big Bang.

Just the opinion of one interested in Life, the Universe, and Everything.

Oh, for someone's sake.


Evolution has NOTHING to do with the creation of the universe. Totally different subjects. You want answers there, go bother some astrophysicists.

He didnt mention evolution once in his opening post. Be mature.

Nothing has ever been created, everything we have witnessed so far is just changes made to what already exists, but early in our history we didnt know this so we invented the concept of creation, unfortunetly many uneducated people want to stick with this idea. Even if we were to congeal matter from a vacuum we would simply be transforming the theoretical particles and energy, not creating anything.

Now lets get off these pointless topics and start using all the resources and whatnot we foolishly waste chasing phantom particles and invisible wish-granting old guys and spend them trying to improve our lives. The only reason to be studying this stuff should be to try and coax free energy from a vacuum or prove with as much certainty as we can that its impossible.

He didnt mention evolution once in his opening post. Be mature.

Well actually he did before he edited it. So off your high horse neo.

In a closed system, Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but only change form (from one to another)... First Law of Thermodynamics.


The First law of Thermodynamics is only a law of what it says it is a law of, themodynamics. It does not hold in quantum mechanics, which is a statistical system. Later on you say it has been proven. I regret to inform you that it is impossible to prove physical laws. They are, and can only be, the best description of the observed phenomena to date.

Virtual particle pairs function by borrowing energy. This energy is repaid by their mutual annihilation. If for some reason this does not happen, then there is a change in the total energy/mass of the closed system. The First law simply does not hold. As such it is not a problem for the Big bang as it is only a guide that is useful in Newtonian physics and the Big Bang was not Newtonian in nature.

The First law of Thermodynamics is only a law of what it says it is a law of, themodynamics. It does not hold in quantum mechanics, which is a statistical system. Later on you say it has been proven. I regret to inform you that it is impossible to prove physical laws. They are, and can only be, the best description of the observed phenomena to date.

Yes, and based upon observational evidence... Why it is a law... And Quantum mechanics is still applicable to the first law... The first law only applied to closed systems... It is as applicable to Quantum mechanics as it is to the planet earth as a whole... neither of which are "closed".


Virtual particle pairs function by borrowing energy. This energy is repaid by their mutual annihilation. If for some reason this does not happen, then there is a change in the total energy/mass of the closed system.

The change occurs in an open system.... Not closed...


The First law simply does not hold. As such it is not a problem for the Big bang as it is only a guide that is useful in Newtonian physics and the Big Bang was not Newtonian in nature.

The First law holds as long as the universe holds... Newtonian laws are restricted to closed "universal" systems... Quantum Theory, Relativity, etc. deal with operations in open systems... While each makes attempts to explain the minute details of the clockwork by which the system came into being; the overal Newtonian scheme still applies to the entirety of the system... Thus it is understood in scope that Quantum Theory will mesh with Thermodynamic Law (even if this does not exist as of yet, sic. Universal theory of Gravitaton/Thermodynamics)... you simply can't contend "Univerals" like laws against "limited scopes" of theories, because in the process you divorce the law from the scope to which it applies (much like Creationists do in their attempts as towards applying entropy as their refutation point)...

Virtual particle pairs function by borrowing energy. This energy is repaid by their mutual annihilation. If for some reason this does not happen, then there is a change in the total energy/mass of the closed system. The First law simply does not hold. As such it is not a problem for the Big bang as it is only a guide that is useful in Newtonian physics and the Big Bang was not Newtonian in nature.
That's a misunderstanding. Thermodynamics is actually useful, from time to time, in the quantum realm. In the example of virtual particles, they typically barrow energy from within the system. Even in the extreme cases where the vacuum provides the energy, what we realize is not that the law fails, but rather our idea of what constitutes a closed system. And that is one of the things that makes the universe far weirder than anyone imagined.

That's a misunderstanding. Thermodynamics is actually useful, from time to time, in the quantum realm. In the example of virtual particles, they typically barrow energy from within the system. Even in the extreme cases where the vacuum provides the energy, what we realize is not that the law fails, but rather our idea of what constitutes a closed system. And that is one of the things that makes the universe far weirder than anyone imagined.

Answering this, to answer both replies.

The universe is, by definition, a closed system. Now if you want to retain a theoretical construct in the face of evidence contrary to it then you go ahead and stick with the First Law of thermodynamics. I prefer to be a little less dogmatic in my approach to theoretical laws.

I refer to it as a law, as that is its name. To me it is not a Law any more than "thou shalt have no God other than me" is a Law.

When some evidence contradicts the theory then the theory has to go. Here there are two theories involved. One is thermodynamics, which as is rightly observed is useful, but so is Newtonian mechanics. The other is the theory that the universe is a closed system. Now I choose to maintain the universe as a closed system, as to discard this would mean discarding virtually all of our theoretical cosmology, whereas to discard the first law of themodynamics does no serious harm.

You may of course choose to do the opposite, just it seems like shooting the chicken because one of its eggs cracked.

Bad idea... Simply from the fact that you're ready to throw out a fundamental law, based on unobserved ideas...

It's like creating a theory based off of observing a piece of paper blow by, and then not being able to find it when you turn around... Most people would "look" for it, before scraping the obvious in favor of the ridiculous.

I go with Steven Gallaghers 'Terminus' theory...either that or the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the great green arkelseizure :D

I go with Steven Gallaghers 'Terminus' theory...either that or the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the great green arkelseizure :D

We shall fear that day......

That day known as THE COMMING OF THE GREAT WHITE HANDKERCHIEF!

The universe is, by definition, a closed system. Now if you want to retain a theoretical construct in the face of evidence contrary to it then you go ahead and stick with the First Law of thermodynamics. I prefer to be a little less dogmatic in my approach to theoretical laws.
Heh. If we do come to be able to make black holes in our magnificen machines, and happen to find that gravity is indeed leaking into an adjoining universe, is the universe closed? If we find a fingerprint in the cosmic background radiation from the collision of an adjoining universe which sparked the "big bang" according to the ekpyrotic hypothesis, is the universe closed? Is the vacuum energy, expending the universe, part of the universe, or outside it? And if it's part of the universe, is it properly accounted for in the "closed system." In your previous example, it wasn't.

Sometimes convenient definitions are poor definitions. It's not a failing of the universe, or it's laws, but of human imagination. That we forever endeavor to discover and correct this is a testiment to our tenacity, and resilience.

We shall fear that day......

That day known as THE COMMING OF THE GREAT WHITE HANDKERCHIEF!
Only a race that invented deodorant before the wheel could possibly have come up with that idea.

Only a race that invented deodorant before the wheel could possibly have come up with that idea.

Well, deodorant is very important when you have 50 arms, and assoctiated armpits....