Latest post in my blog on popular science:
Singularities
https://populscience.blogspot.com/2024/09/singularities.html
Regards,
Manuel’s latest blog post on singularities that he shared here is quite interesting. He says (and I agree) that “singularities” are often named so when the math that is used to describe something actually physically in the universe results in an infinite value (or more than one infinite value). Manuel rightly says that physicists are general suspicious that infinities purporting to describe any “real” variable in nature.
Manuel mentions three “infinities” that are generally admitted as (at least potentially) corresponding to reality. The first is related to time and space. But curiously he excludes the possibility of infinite time if it includes past time, because (he says) if the universe were of infinite duration, it would have long ago — scratch that: an infinitely long time ago! — have died a “heat death” (due to the immutability of the second principle of thermodynamics). This just proves that infinites are tricky business.
I don’t think entropy is the “death” knell for the idea of time infinity in a fundamentally infinite universe. Just as there is no impediment (from entropy) to a human being living forever (as as long as there is a universe), I think the same can at least theoretically apply to the life of the universe. Especially if the universe is Consciousness itself, as it would seemingly have to be if it was truly “no beginning and no end”; because that is what God is! And (scriptures tell us) God is everywhere and in all and through all and “in Him we live and move and exist.” Which is what we do in the universe.
But that to me is the one and only exception to a so-called singularity making sense: the God Singularity. Which negates the idea of a “Big Bang” singularity, since that by definition implies a finite universe, both in space and time (unless a static “no energy” state can be considered an eternal future!).
So that leaves black holes. The reason this blog title piqued my interest is because I had just recently read that Roy Kerr, who is an 89 year-old physicist who is credited with being the Father of black hole theory, has published an article thoroughly disparaging of Hawking’s and Penrose’s work (for which they were awarded Nobel Prizes) that describes black holes having point singularities with infinite mass. (Doesn’t that just seem wrong, if not stupid? It does to me.) In his paper, the venerable physicist says of such theorists (who understand that a rapidly-spinning neutron star accreting mass and contracting will eventually form a black hole): “Why do so many believe that the star inside must become singular at this moment? Faith, not science! Sixty years without a proof, but they believe!”
Quite the indictment. And all the more so because it is unnecessary. While Kerr does not write about it, Einstein wrote in definitive terms NO FEWER THAN EIGHT TIMES over 13 years — the first time in 1907 and the last time in 1920 — that the speed of light is variable, that it slows down the closer (lower) it gets to a gravitational source. Follow that far enough and you get to the point where a collapsing star that has accreted enough mass will cause the light reaching it to essentially have a speed of zero. Some theorists call this a “frozen star.” I’m not sure how that compares to the gravastar theory Manuel blogged about separately.
Here is the salient quote from Einstein is the 1920 paper: “the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable”. I wonder how many physicists do not know about this conclusion of Einstein’s?
Regards,
Michael, Lord High Heretic
Indeed–which is why the universe[1] cannot be infinite. Einstein showed us that matter and energy are interchangeable, and entropy is ever-increasing. Thus, if matter has always existed, we would long ago have reached maximum entropy. Thermodynamics proves that the universe had a beginning, just as Genesis 1:1 says. Unless you hypothesize that entropy itself is a result of the Fall.
or more precisely, the matter/energy of which it consists ↩︎
Einstein showed us that matter IS energy. It is never a “particle” ; it is always a wave. Always. Entropy is not ever-increasing in all contexts. Just as the speed of light varies according to the “gravitational potential” along its path. (Gravity is also just energy). You are not taking into account the infinity of space, Dan. That changes everything, including how and why entropy functions.
Einstein showed us that matter IS energy. It is never a “particle” ; it is always a wave. Always.
-
Einstein explained the photoelectric effect (and got a Nobel Prize for that reason) showing that light is made of particles (photons). So electromagnetic energy can also be made of particles.
-
Bohr showed that matter, although it can be considered as waves, and described by Schrödinger equation, becomes particles as soon as you measure its position (the problem of measurement in quantum theory).
So matter is both waves and particles.
Entropy is not ever-increasing in all contexts.
Of course, but it is ever-increasing in closed systems without external contribution of energy. If the universe is everything that exists, the universe must be such a system. Ergo…
Just as the speed of light varies according to the “gravitational potential” along its path. (Gravity is also just energy).
Gravity is not energy. It is geometry.
Regards,
To say that gravity is geometry is the most fundamental error that misunderstands Einstein’s writings. This is where modern physics makes its most fundamental error. It is clear now that the digital online files of Einstein’s writings are available. Light slows down in a gravity environment where space is not homogenous. The closer to gravity it gets, the slower it goes, and the “lower” it goes. Since all matter is, like light, just energy, it is affected similarly.
There are many brilliant scientists and researchers no writing about this. A photon is a wave, albeit a standing wave in the energy field that is space. Einstein hesitated to call this field an ether, because special relativity doesn’t need one for its calculations, but later he acknowledged it in his writings on general relativity. A wave on the shore when you “measure” it — when it slaps hard into — has a solid feel and force. But it is and remains a wave. Quantum theory has never been (as Einstein repeatedly said) and is not now, complete…if it is even correct at all. Yes, the math can useful in some circumstances for predictions of various phenomena, but what is the reality?
Really, Manuel? You understand infinity? You know that it’s the same as a closed system (which, by definition, is not limited!)?
To say that gravity is geometry is the most fundamental error that misunderstands Einstein’s writings.
That’s what you say. I won’t go here into details, because it’s too long to be explained.
Really, Manuel? You understand infinity? You know that it’s the same as a closed system (which, by definition, is not limited!)?
In the context of the 2nd. thermodynamics principle, a closed system is a system where nothing can go in from outside the system. Regardless of whether the universe is finite or infinite, nothing can get into the universe from outside it, therefore it is a closed system.
Regards,
If one can believe infinity is a closed system, I suppose one can believe anything.
From where would anything (matter or energy) enter the universe? To where would it go? The answer to both questions is “nowhere.”
If energy is infinite, why do you need more? And if you do need more, well, there’s an infinite supply. One can make the case that the universe cannot be infinite, and therefore it will most definitely suffer a heat death someday. Um, you know, unless God supplies more energy. But he can ONLY do that into a finite universe, dontchaknow.
God is in all and through all and in Him we live and breathe and exist.
I’m thinking that might be important to take into consideration when thinking about where energy could come from.
It isn’t. There’s an enormous amount of it, yes, but it’s still finite.
Not the point. If energy cannot enter or exit the universe, then the universe is, by definition, a closed system. Your sarcasm doesn’t change that.
Physics, like any other science, doesn’t deal with God, because God cannot be measured. But the laws by which he presently governs the universe[1] include those of thermodynamics, which in turn include that energy is finite and fixed, and that entropy is constantly increasing.
When the redemption of all creation is accomplished and we’re living in the New Earth[2],[3], it will operate under different natural laws. We’re told little about those, but it being eternal, we can infer that ever-increasing entropy will not be among them. But that is not the universe in which we’re presently living.
You are talking past me, Dan. Energy is only finite IF the universe is finite. PERIOD. To say more is to say more than you can possible know. You cannot prove the universe is finite. And even if you could prove that, you can’t prove that God could not supply more energy into it if He desired.
Just give me the point already!
You keep talking to someone else. I didn’t say “I need more” energy; I asked why is more needed to be supplied into an infinite universe? You can’t answer that, unless you are claiming to understand infinity. Which, go ahead!
IT WAS A HYPOTHETICAL, Dan. Are you paying attention this time?
No one has shown or measured so as to prove that even THIS universe is on its way to a heat death. That is a theory based upon suppositions that it is a closed system, which cannot be proven even apart from invoking God. You can’t prove it, and indeed no one has proven it. Citations?
And don’t tell me that I am resorting to miracles, Dan. There is scripture that says He upholds creation by the word of his power. Do you claim to know exactly what that means?
I am not the one claiming to know all the answers here. I leave that to you.
I will not, because it is you who persist in talking past not only me, but also Manuel. “Energy” as we’re using it–and as he used it in the blog post you’re responding to–is a measurable physical quantity. God is neither measurable nor physical; such “energy” as he has is of a different sort entirely.
…and the universe is finite–both in terms of time and space. The Bible directly tells us the former; God created all things, which means they had a beginning–therefore, not infinite in time. As to the latter, God has measured the heavens and the earth (Isaiah 40:12), which means they aren’t infinite in space.
Of course I can’t prove that, and I’ll freely admit it: God can create matter or energy whenever it pleases him to do so. But here you’re doing what you deny in a later post, resorting to miracles–creation ex nihilo is surely a miracle, and if it isn’t ex nihilo, he isn’t “supply[ing] more energy.”
…which continues to incorrectly assume that the universe is infinite. Asked and answered.
I am. Can you stop yelling?
To return to the question you’ve failed to answer: leaving God out of the picture for the moment (which you just agreed to do), from where would energy enter the universe, or to where would it depart? If the answer is “nowhere” (and it is), then it is by definition a closed system–that’s simply what the term means.
I claim that scripture is perspicuous, so the meaning of Hebrews 1:3 can be known, but I don’t claim to be an infallible interpreter. But with that said, I understand it to mean that God is actively managing the universe,[1],[2] and doing so according to the laws of his design which we’ve observed and call the “laws of Nature.” He is, as I’ve already said, free and able to work outside or against those laws when it pleases him to do so. If you have a contrary interpretation, by all means explain it.
Can you cool it with the barbs, jabs, and insults? You know perfectly well that I make no such claim.
But Dan, you continue to make the claim that you absolutely for sure know all kinds of things. Your arrogance is almost infinite! Just because you can measure a specific energy transfer doesn’t mean that God is not involved directly or indirectly, nor does it tell us anything about the total amount of energy in the universe.
And I am surprised at your scripture proof that you say supposedly utterly proves that the universe itself had a beginning (out of nothing) and is neither eternal nor infinite. Once again, as per usual, you completely ignore the scriptures I referenced which at least suggest the opposite. (Gen 1:1 does not even have the whole universe in view! It is most obviously speaking of the terraforming of this already-existing biosphere. But I don’t go so far as you as to claim it’s a proof text.) But even where it does say God created all things, it does not say there was some point BEFORE God was creating things, when there was nothing but God. Perhaps God was “twiddling his thumbs” in boredom, idk. I don’t even know what to say about your scripture interpretation skills when you use a scripture that says god has “measure the heavens” as teaching that the universe is finite. Wow.
You also lack imagination if you can only postulate God as supplying new energy into this universe (again IF it’s finite). How about an anti-universe, a parallel universe, a multi-verse? But here I have the sinking feeling that you are going to confidently sweep all that aside and say that “all of them together” are still not infinite (how you think you know that is amazing to me) so are still a closed system subject to the the management of the one true god: entropy!
Regards,
Michael
Dan, I strongly urge that you ban Michael from this group. I don’t think that any of us are obligated to be subjected to his overwhelming rudeness.
Dimitry
“Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. Love does not demand its own way. Love is not irritable, and it keeps no record of when it has been wronged. It is never glad about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance. Love will last forever.” (1 Corinthians 13: 4-8)
My respect has really dropped for you, Dimitri. Do you think it is not rude to ban someone who is making a really important argument for God being constantly at work in the universe, but rude if I make a little joke — in context – about “infinite” arrogance in saying what infinity is like?
I am a founding member of both SpareOom and its predecessor. If the group bans me, it is not me who has changed. Read a little group history, why don’t you?
Michael
Appointed Lord High Heretic of SpareOom by the Great Dragon himself, may he live forever (in our hearts).
Then by all means make it, and treat it as the important argument you say it is. Support your factual claims, and demonstrate where your interlocutors are in error. But thus far, you’re doing none of those things[1].
Mike, if you’re joking, you’re doing a very bad job of it.
I’m loath to ban you for exactly the reason you state (as well as out of respect for my elders)–you’ve been a part of SpareOom since its beginning (as have I, and as have almost all the rest of us here). I don’t need to consult the group history;
…and the issue is not a new one, though it seems to be increasing in recent years: you’re either unable or unwilling to disagree without making it personal. I’m not just wrong, I’m “arrogant” and “claiming to know all the answers.” Dimitry isn’t simply mistaken in suggesting you be banned, he’s lost your respect. To go to a different discussion, the reason I believe Jesus taught eternal punishment in hell is because I want that to be true (certainly it can’t be because that’s what I understand the text to say, whether I like it or not). And on, and on, and on. To say it’s tiresome would be a gross understatement[2].
Similarly, your surprise at my scripture references does not demonstrate them to be in error. You are, of course, free to do so if you can–and I’d appreciate if you would. Not only would it remove (or at least mitigate) the personal tone this conversation has taken lately, I and others reading might learn something.
You’ve mentioned in passing two scriptures in this thread: Hebrews 1:3, which I directly addressed in the post you’re responding to, and Acts 17:28. I don’t see how either of them is relevant to this discussion; perhaps you could explain?
What but God is uncreated? And if the answer to that is “nothing” (which I believe the Bible clearly teaches), then it necessarily follows that there was nothing but God–Father, Son, and Spirit–until it pleased God to create all things.
Perhaps he was, as Augustine suggested, creating hell for people who ask questions like “what was God doing before he created all things?” The more accurate answer is that as time itself is a created thing, there was no “before he was creating things” temporally speaking.
How about them? They’re interesting hypotheses with zero evidence to support them. But if any such things do exist (which I don’t see any reason to believe), they’re still part of creation.
It surely couldn’t be what I’ve already said: they’re created things, and thus had a beginning. And therefore, they are not infinite with respect to time. As to space, notwithstanding your astonishment, what can be measured is finite. Thus, if the universe has been measured (which I believe is included in the meaning of Isaiah 40:12), it cannot be infinite. If you think I’m wrong, well, I’m not from Missouri, but I think the principle still applies: show me.