Creation vs. Evolution

[TCDiver1]

I guess i'm having reading comprehension issues .... could you help a brother out?

EDIT:
I see you clarified. This is my understanding of the 1st law of Thermo:
The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed.

 

[H2Andy]

correct...

he was talking about matter, and the real player here is energy.

(assuming, of course, a closed system ... and the Earth is not a closed system ...

and the Universe may not be a closed system ...we don't know)

 

[TCDiver1]

That what i was taught and somehow passed Thermo 101 with.

 

[Jamdiver]

For the purposes of clarity.....

A definition of the First law of Thermodynamics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

The first law of thermodynamics is a generalized axiom of nature in relation to the conservation of energy. The most common enunciation of first law of thermodynamics is:


The increase in the internal energy of a thermodynamic system is equal to the amount of heat energy added to the system minus the work done by the system on the surroundings.

It's very simple and makes sense, I don't know if you ever did experiments back in high school calculating the energy used to boil a known mass of water and comparing the difference/discrepancy in values of the heat capacity of that mass of water and the energy used to actually boil it.

The difference would be heat lost to the environment (air) a form of radiation.. (radiant energy)

 

[Potapko]

see, this is what i mean

some of you guys argue about this stuff and don't really know what you're talking about.

that IS NOT the first law of thermodynamics. look it up, please. this information is widely available.

:shakehead

You intellectuals crack me up.

Here it is:
First Law of Thermodynamics

The increase in the internal energy of a thermodynamic system is equal to the amount of heat energy added to the system minus the work done by the system on the surroundings.

In simpler terms:

The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. However, it can not be created nor destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant. Einstein's famous equation (written below) describes the relationship between energy and matter:

E = MC2
In the equation above, energy (E) is equal to matter (M) times the square of a constant (C). Einstein suggested that energy and matter are interchangeable. His equation also suggests that the quantity of energy and matter in the Universe is fixed.

Energy exists in many forms, such as heat, light, chemical energy, and electrical energy. Energy is the ability to bring about change or to do work. Thermodynamics is the study of energy.

For the rest of us:

First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another. Click here for another page (developed by Dr. John Pratte, Clayton State Univ., GA) covering thermodynamics.

 

[H2Andy]

well, good, you finally looked it up

maybe you learned something

 

[Potapko]

well, good, you finally looked it up

maybe you learned something

Yup, sure did. Some people will strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

 

[lamont]

It then becomes "law" after thousands and thousands of attempts have failed to show any "known" exception.

That is why this can be proven while staying in the realm of science and not religion.

So please give the evidence against the First "law" of thermodynamics. "Matter cannot be created or destroyed by natural means"

This "law" rules out TO DATE a natural explanation for the origin of the universe. Atheists will have to say that the answer just has not been found YET.

Fine, but don't call that science. A natural origin of the universe is in complete opposition to the first "law". Remember, laws have no known exceptions.

Keep the argument here till we have a conclusion.
If a natural origin is in complete opposition to a known law, the universe must logically have a supernatural origin. It is the only scientifically acceptable answer.

Actually the energy-time version of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle violates the first law of thermodynamics in the creation of virtual particles, although those particles are not useful for extracting energy. The "origin" of the universe is also currently outside all scientific theories, including the big bang and therefore there is no violation of the conservation of energy. The big bang is largely an observationally-driven theory that the universe was a one time a hot ball of plasma which cooled, and when matter and radiation decoupled it gave rise to the observed CMBR (and the redshift of the CMBR and the redshift of distant galaxies, the observed relationship between distance and redshift, etc). The origin of the big bang is speculative and is open to theorization and one of those theories is to just run the math backwards in time until you reach infinite energy density, but there's no experimental evidence that anything like that is correct and certainly physics does not "predict" that outcome in any useful sense (infinities almost certainly mean the theory breaks down before it gets there).

 

[TheRedHead]

Actually the energy-time version of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle violates the first law of thermodynamics in the creation of virtual particles, although those particles are not useful for extracting energy.

I believe I said in my first post in this thread is that all one needed to do is to read Heisenberg and Spinoza and they would realize the futility of this thread.

 

[lamont]

I think the earlier post that you mention misrepresented or, at least, incompletely represented the meaning of the equation E=MC^2. The equation doesn't invalidate either the conservation of matter or energy but rather combines the two.

When a mass gives off radiation, mass is lost and trapped radiation has mass. However that doesn't imply that you can get something from nothing nor does it imply that a 100% conversion is physically possible. The 100% conversion of even a small amount of mass to energy would be a devistating event that probably would take most everything else out with it. LOL...the matter/antimatter thing, right? It does imply that a mass at rest does have energy (lots of it) which goes beyond newtons energy equation E=(MV^2)/2 which would suggest that a resting mass has no energy. The two are reconciled by defining the total energy basically as the sum of the two. That may be oversimplistic since I didn't go into the different kinds of mass refered to in the various equations and I'm not going to try.

In any case, it would seem that spontanious creation either depends on "somthing from nothing" or a "something" that has no beginning and always existed whether it was energy or mass or both.

Atomic bombs have an efficiency of extracting energy from matter of about 1/1000 or 0.1%. Matter-antimatter annihilation is 1000x more powerful. Of course antimatter also requires an equivalently large energy input to create because early in the universe all the antimatter annihilated with nearly all the matter in the universe and what we're left with is the tiny bit of excess matter which CPT-violating reactions created.

Black holes, through the way they warp space though, can actually get better efficiency at extracting energy from mass than atomic bombs or solar thermonuclear processes. As matter falls down the gravity well of a black hole it radiates energy and loses its mass. In the case of supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies this conversion of matter to energy is what fuels the observed active galactic nuclei (AGN) and quasars and blazars.

Something that I've always wondered about is the possibility that in the future we might generate the ability to catalyze CPT-violating reactions. Grand Unified Theories predict that there should be bosons involved in processes like proton decay which lead to violation of baryon number and which would convert a proton to, basically, energy. If we investigate physics at this GUT level of energy we could find out how to catalyze this reaction or produce a chain-reaction. The application to interstellar travel would be highly useful since the efficiency in converting mass to energy is largely what limits the ability to travel at relativistic speeds (to move humans at relativistic speeds you really need a total conversion drive). Of course, it might also produce weapons 1000 times more powerful than hydrogen bombs... It is, however, the next logical progression in weaponry from chemical to nuclear to total conversion just going by energy yield from the matter input of the bomb...