Fine tuning
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-01-2016, 12:48 PM
RE: Fine tuning
(31-01-2016 09:46 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(30-01-2016 09:50 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  The whole creation business requires a HUGE violation of the first law of thermodynamics anyway.

Er.... hmmm.

e=mc2 doesn't actually imply that. But unless the matter is at absolute 0 it would be emitting light as emission rays or blackbody radiation. And if all the matter in the universe WERE at absolute zero... then the universe began with its heat death? By what mechanism would one even measure the passage of time under those circumstances?

How do you figure? If there is no light, there is no E term. No E, no m. And absolute zero is the cessation of molecular motion, but not the lowest entropic state. No E, no m, no molecules. Absolute zero is also not what you described in terms of no energy. Even if you could get atoms to absolute zero, the atoms would still be there, energy would still exist, so light would also exist in some form. You even said yourself:
Quote: But unless the matter is at absolute 0 it would be emitting light as emission rays or blackbody radiation.

Last I checked, light is energy (E=hv) so hv=mc2. If something is emitting any light, it is still mass in another form. What I said still applies. What you say about the universe beginning with heat death makes no sense because as far as we are aware, as we approach Planck time, the rules as we know it don't necessarily apply. And if I had a mechanism for anything prior to the big bang, I would be buddies with Krauss and Hawking. Absolute zero is irrelevant to what I said.

Even if there was no light, there'd be forms of energy other than light, that's what I'm saying. The E term in Einstein's equation of mass-energy equivalence is far more general than just light, and can be, as you noted, applied to the energy wrapped up in matter instead. E = mc^2 says that mass is energy, but that energy does NOT have to be photons (and isn't -- it's mass) and the existence of a mass-energy equivalence does not, in and of itself, imply the existence of light.

The equation does not say that mass IS light. It is to say that mass is energy, and it is equal to THIS much energy. Energy can take many forms -- temperature, motion, mass, light... but any quantum of energy takes only one form at a time, and if that energy is in the form of mass it is not in the form of light. It's a bit like saying that an exchange rate of, say, 1 US dollar to 0.70 British pounds means that dollars are actually pounds. They aren't... they just can be swapped at that rate. That was my disagreement with you.

I then went on to attempt to salvage your argument about light existing of necessity by noting that matter produces light at any temperature except theoretically at 0 Kelvin. This is still not a consequence of Einstein's E = mc^2, but of a host of different equations, notably Planck's law of black-body radiation. Thus, while the existence of light from matter is not necessitated by Einstein's equation, other parts of physics DO necessitate it if the universe is not at absolute 0. And if the universe is at absolute 0... well, that might not be outside of the power of an omnipotent god, but it does render our entire notion of time (and hence days) meaningless.

... though not having a sun ALSO renders our notion of days meaningless, so this approach is a bit less direct than it needs be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: