Help - Random Physics Guru Debunk

[TheChadd]

I'm arguing about the existance of God with this muslim bloke on a student forum. I've already handled the "=God" part of his whole argument, however I would really appreciate it if someone could point out flaws with his 'physics', I can attempt to as a layman and have come up with several problems myself, but someone with more knowledge in the subject I think could do it much better.

Prior to the laws, our universe didn't exist. It wasn't even a physical place, (this is not like the space we know of, because it consists of all the laws of physics) It was law-less. Untill the creation of the first law, which was the Law of Energy. It was this: (Energy exists, and it is a finite ammount it is this much exactly "y.yyx10^y".) So, there would be Energy but it would not be the Energy whcih we know today, which is governed by thermodynamics, it would exist as a type of Force. However, this energy would have needed to sustain itself as it would be under pressure as a whole. It would have had to transfer into something else to maintain the energy and this would have been Billions of small particles. (This would make the 2nd Law of physics in our universe. "The Law of Matter". )

Matter would not be the particles we know today as they wouldn't be governed by the laws of thermodynamics, and would have existed motionless. (Properly in a huge or tiny ball depending on your definition of huge and tiny. ) They would have Energy, they would not be energy anymore, (Energy could not be lost because of the first Law, the finite ammount of energy could never be lessened or lost, because of the first Law. )

So, the particles needed a way to maintain the energy. The birth of the third law was created, 'all matter has gravity which is the attraction to other matter', this law was created so that the energy could be maintained as it would be all positive, motionless energy which stressed the particle's form. The Law of gravity meant all the energy particles would 'come closer and closer together', this tightness would be the next challenge to the energy in an almost lawless universe, the first law has to be followed though and the pressure of the paticles compacting together gave birth to the next law. It was that energy could be 'transfered, but never lost.' which is the first law of thermodynamics. So, as the charged particles began colliding together, they were stressed enough to release another kind of energy particles. (ElectroMagnetic Radiation) The gravity in the radiation would cause it to travel in a wave, as it would leave the 'scene' on an angle whilst maintaining it's own 'gravity'. (The energy would not just have been waves, but tiny particles from the collision.. extremely tiny...)

Therefore the second law of thermodynamics was created, to protect the 2nd law of our universe (matter), so that matter could exist. (maintaining the energy which is held within them). The rest is pretty much how we know it today. Then energy became a hot, heap and bundle. It became overly hot, and the electromagnetic radiation, seeped through the particles (which slowly developped, through collisions and stresses, including negative particles which were a result of equalising 2 positive particles clashing, there would have to be an opposite force as energy woudl transfer from one particle to the other, leaving one half negative. )

Slowly, these electrons and protons exploded together, transfering negative's to positives, the energy from there crashes produced the energy needed for the block to explode and.


Here are things which you may ask:
How long between process one till the explosion: (I'd say less then 1x10^-999)

You said that the particles existed in a 'ball', isn't a sphere only a sphere because of the 4th law 'gravity'? : Yeah, that's probably right too but it's the best way to explain it.

Who made the first law? : I say god, because the entity could not have been from within the universe.

[TV's Frank]

You could say,

"You're wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. W. Wrongy Wrongenstein. Everything you have said, from the first sentence to the last, is wrong. Your description has sucked some the Right out of the universe. You should be ashamed of yourself for being so wrong. In fact, you should never ever speak again, because whatever you say will probably be wrong, and you've used up your Wrong quota for the year.

How do I know? A physicist told me so, and he's smarter than you, plus he knows what he's talking about. But he was too tired to explain why."

[TheChadd]

You could say,

"You're wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. W. Wrongy Wrongenstein. Everything you have said, from the first sentence to the last, is wrong. Your description has sucked some the Right out of the universe. You should be ashamed of yourself for being so wrong. In fact, you should never ever speak again, because whatever you say will probably be wrong, and you've used up your Wrong quota for the year.

How do I know? A physicist told me so, and he's smarter than you, plus he knows what he's talking about. But he was too tired to explain why."

lol thanks, i've passed that along.

[Goshawk]

IANA physicist, but I do know what the Laws of Thermodynamics are, and this is wrong: "the second law of thermodynamics was created...so that matter could exist". The Second Law of Thermodynamics covers "entropy" and says that things are generally in a state of "winding down", which doesn't have anything to do with enabling matter to exist.

Also, the Third Law of Thermodynamics does not state that "all matter has gravity which is the attraction to other matter". The Third Law of thermodynamics says that if all the molecules stop moving, you get absolute zero.

It sounds like he's making up his own Laws, that he's referring to some god who came in and formulated laws that are not the same thing as what is generally meant by the "Three Laws of Thermodynamics".

[TheChadd]

IANA physicist, but I do know what the Laws of Thermodynamics are, and this is wrong: "the second law of thermodynamics was created...so that matter could exist". The Second Law of Thermodynamics covers "entropy" and says that things are generally in a state of "winding down", which doesn't have anything to do with enabling matter to exist.

Also, the Third Law of Thermodynamics does not state that "all matter has gravity which is the attraction to other matter". The Third Law of thermodynamics says that if all the molecules stop moving, you get absolute zero.

It sounds like he's making up his own Laws, that he's referring to some god who came in and formulated laws that are not the same thing as what is generally meant by the "Three Laws of Thermodynamics".

His Laws are...

Law 1: Energy exists in a finite amount
Law 2: Energy turns into matter or something

I don't know where the laws come from, maybe he just pulled them out of his ass? I don't think they're meant to be the laws of thermodynamics, if they are then he's just wrong.

[NobbyNobbs]

So, the particles needed a way to maintain the energy. The birth of the third law was created, 'all matter has gravity which is the attraction to other matter', this law was created so that the energy could be maintained as it would be all positive, motionless energy which stressed the particle's form. The Law of gravity meant all the energy particles would 'come closer and closer together',

I wonder if he is confusing this with Newton's 3rd Law of Motion, "For every force, there is an equal and opposite force"? This "all matter has gravity which is the attraction to other matter" is Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation.

I'm also curious by his term "energy particles". Is he talking about photons?

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

It seems to me that this guy is thinking that the Laws of Physics were made up in a parliament or committee... with the Chairman/Prime Minister/President is "God".

The "laws" are ways to describe how the universe works. It just so happens that what started out as a guess, has pretty much consistently and accurately predicted projected outcomes for several problems (like engines, refrigerators, various other systems). I'm not a physicist, just an engineer who used several of these "laws" to analyze how structures would behave (mostly Newtonian Laws of Motion, with occasional forays with thermodynamics).

I mostly remember the three laws of thermodynamics as:

1) You can't get something from nothing.
2) You cannot break even.
3) You cannot even leave the game.

Further explanation of this is here:
http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae280.cfm

[Kopji]

So, there would be Energy but it would not be the Energy whcih we know today, which is governed by thermodynamics, it would exist as a type of Force. However, this energy would have needed to sustain itself as it would be under pressure as a whole.

This part seems like nonsense, sort of a fallacy onion. I presume 'pressure' obeys some sort of physics laws? So how can he describe his pre existent energy in terms of 'laws' that had not been invented yet? This seems like begging the question, but using lots of large words to do it.

[Kopji]

The argument he is making in fewer words goes something like this:

There is either something or nothing.
There is something, so it means there is a God.

[TheChadd]

Very good points guys, I've forwarded some to him and I'm trying to get him to explain some of his terms a bit better... or even find out what exactly these laws are.

I was wondering however, do we have any idea how these laws that govern our universe did come into being i.e. is there a logical A = B = C = D = E pattern that we can show for how they come into existance, or do we just suppose that they all came into existance at the same time, or is it just a guess either way?

[TheChadd]

There is either something or nothing.
There is something, so it means there is a God.


I think it's a prime mover argument, i.e. something had to begin our universe - he thinks that thing was God. I've explained to him that it doesn't necessarily have to be conscious or whatever and could very well just be a naturalistic process that we don't understand and he doesn't seem to challenge this, while still deciding to call it 'God' and profess it doesn't conflict with his muslim beliefs (and claim it does for an atheist).

It's an extremly loose definition of what 'God' is.

[TheChadd]

This is his response;

They aren't laws which have been proven or theoreticised before, Just laws which govern the Universe. (In my opinion.) Remember, this is just a theory however, it is more plausible then the concept of the Big Bang theory which presumes that all the laws which govern the universe, along with matter existed prior to the 'Big Bang', which is a flawed statement.

I'll do a quick run-down.

1. Law of Energy - Energy Exists, It is a Finite ammount.
2. Law of Matter - Energy could not simply exist as energy as the space would cause it to diffuse into concentrations of higher and lower energy which would cause and entropy-effect where the energy would need to hold a physical state in order to not be stressed or seperated. The Law of matter was made because of the stressing and seperation of energy, the energy would then exist as particles. (Hence the 2nd law, which is the Law of Matter. )

The rest is pretty self explanatory. If you have the correct understanding of Physics.


I've replied with:

Why would it cause it to 'diffuse into concentrations of higher and lower energy and cause an entropy effect'.... Your first claim was that there was ONE law to start off, that there is energy in a finite amount. There are no other laws so I don't understand what is effecting it. I.e. what made it 'stress and separate' ?

Also, what do you mean by 'particles' do you perhaps mean photons?

His reply to that:

a) It's energy it's not matter there would be no force behind the diffusion besides causing a balance and the energys charge would cause it to react that way. (I'll explain later)

b) Yes, and no. (the photons are the smalls particles of energy released in the clashs.)


Wth?

[Mojo]

This is his response: ...the Big Bang theory which presumes that all the laws which govern the universe, along with matter existed prior to the 'Big Bang', which is a flawed statement.
No it doesn't.

[Bikewer]

I'm currently reading Michio Kaku's Parallel Worlds, which is a layman-geared explanation of contemporary cosmology, and an overview of the history of the discoveries that have taken us to this point.

I'm only about halfway through, but the current thinking is that each "event" that spawns a universe (singularity, big bang, whatever) has the potential of havings it's own "constants".
Universes spawn universes, in this way of thinking, possibly an infinite number of same. Each universe will have it's own set of constants, which may vary a little or a lot from the congenial set we experience in our own.

Note that this idea knocks Intelligent Design into a cocked hat; if there are an infinite number of universes, each with it's own set of constants, then it's hard to argue for special design or creation.

[Cuddles]

I'm arguing about the existance of God with this muslim bloke on a student forum. I've already handled the "=God" part of his whole argument, however I would really appreciate it if someone could point out flaws with his 'physics', I can attempt to as a layman and have come up with several problems myself, but someone with more knowledge in the subject I think could do it much better.

"Prior to the laws, our universe didn't exist."

The problems start there, and it doesn't get any better after that. Just ask him to prove that statement, anything afterwards is irrelevant if he can't.

[Ziggurat]

"Prior to the laws, our universe didn't exist."

The problems start there, and it doesn't get any better after that. Just ask him to prove that statement, anything afterwards is irrelevant if he can't.

You don't even need to do that much: just ask him for the equations for this theory. Because that's what physics is: a mathematical theory of the universe. If there's no math, there's no theory, and you're dealing with philosophy and not physics.

[Jimbo07]

They aren't laws which have been proven or theoreticised before, Just laws which govern the Universe. (In my opinion.)

So apparently, opinion = Law? :boggled:


Remember, this is just a theory however, it is more plausible then the concept of the Big Bang theory which presumes that all the laws which govern the universe, along with matter existed prior to the 'Big Bang', which is a flawed statement.

To expand on Mojo's statement... "all the laws which govern the universe, along with matter existed prior to the 'Big Bang'," is a flawed statement. The flaw is this bloke's. Big Bang theory seems to support exactly the opposite (unless I've misunderstood). The laws (as we know them), constants, etc. possibly took their current form after the Big Bang. We lack the technical ability to say what was 'before' the Big Bang, because technical ability... did not exist! If, as Bikewer offered, another theory shows some teeth, it will only push philosophical questions back one step because someone might say, 'okay, where did the multiverse come from?'


1. Law of Energy - Energy Exists, It is a Finite ammount.

I don't know how to comment on this.


2. Law of Matter - Energy could not simply exist as energy as the space would cause it to diffuse into concentrations of higher and lower energy which would cause and entropy-effect where the energy would need to hold a physical state in order to not be stressed or seperated.

Nonsense.


The Law of matter was made because of the stressing and seperation of energy, the energy would then exist as particles. (Hence the 2nd law, which is the Law of Matter. )

What? :boggled:


The rest is pretty self explanatory. If you have the correct understanding of Physics.

The correct understanding of physics? This isn't even an interested lay person's knowledge! There are a lot of people who are not professional physicists who can call shenanigans on this guy.

Is this a case of:

correct understanding of physics = woo-woo understanding of physics?

[patnray]

Quite funny, really. It's all made up nonsense with no consistency at all. SO many misconceptions and falsehoods in every sentence...

"So, as the charged particles began colliding together, they were stressed enough to release another kind of energy particles. (ElectroMagnetic Radiation) The gravity in the radiation would cause it to travel in a wave, as it would leave the 'scene' on an angle whilst maintaining it's own 'gravity'. (The energy would not just have been waves, but tiny particles from the collision.. extremely tiny...)"

How does he reconcile this with Maxwell's equations, which eloquently descibe electromagnetic waves in terms of electric and magnetic fields without considering gravity at all?

"So, the particles needed a way to maintain the energy."

Particles have needs. How anthropomorphic...

[ponderingturtle]

It looks to me like a flawed idea based on how modern theories(laws) break down at various points as you get closer to the begining of the universe, and taking that to mean that there where no laws and instead of breaking symitries and such the laws where imposed at various times.

This is entirely wrong of course, but that is my guess as to where this idea comes from

[TheChadd]

And it continues: :eye-poppi

I don't see where the inconsistancies are, they're not considering what's right infront of them. I said prior to the 'existance of the laws', the universe did not exist and technically that's right in the creation of the universe which I modeled. It was theory, do you see the difference between theory and 'fact'?

Also, because of these laws, even if other 'cosmologists', correctly predict that the universe will reach a curvature and the positive gravitational effect would cause an opposite, the universe would 'still exist', and there would still be the same ammount of energy and laws governing the energy.

It's a weak argument to suggest the 'matter' in the universe are more important than the laws which govern them, because the laws to our universe are unique. They're what made the universe not vice-versa.

The problem is how do you 'prove' theory? Your buddies haven't really selected anything and challenged it properly, without Laws the universe doesn't exist, it's just nothing, the Laws make the universe a 'place', and all other Laws support the First Law. (I don't know other words to explain it, it just 'is'. ) I'll spend sometime modelling a different universe but it isn't easy trying to think of things which we've never experienced or dealt with, I'm thinking of an entity which is bound by a multi dimensional universe, where a parrallel on a lattice like spiderweb, Links everything In the universe and where the dispersion of 'the entity' could be maintained equally because the 'entity', has the potential to travel anywhere in the universe but still be relatively close to all other entities, because of the 4-5d universe.

(When I'm done I'll post about It and explain using a different example how the laws of the Universe are created by one initial law, which spontaneously occurs, it is super-natural thought, and isn't something which can be replicated, that's all I've tried to suggest using theory.)


I've already covered the whole 'theory' thing / philosophy of science.

[Jimbo07]

I'll post about It and explain using a different example how the laws of the Universe are created by one initial law,


If he can provide the one initial equation from which all other equations describing physical systems follow...

umm...

... a Nobel prize would be the least of the accolades heaped upon him for all of history to come! And that's the least I can imagine to say! :eek:

...

somehow I doubt it. :rolleyes:

ETA: You've covered philosophy of science and theory, you say. You should cover: Law, Theory, Hypothesis, Conjecture, Speculation, Science Fiction, Wild Guesses and Wishful Thinking...

[CaveDave]

And it continues: :eye-poppi
...universe which I modeled. It was theory, do you see the difference between theory and 'fact'?
Will someone more patient than I please explain to that bloke how wrong that is (in the sense he used the terms)?
It's a weak argument to suggest the 'matter' in the universe are more important than the laws which govern them, because the laws to our universe are unique. They're what made the universe not vice-versa.
Chicken...
Egg...
Hmmm... decisions, decisions...

The problem is how do you 'prove' theory? Your buddies haven't really selected anything and challenged it properly, without Laws the universe doesn't exist, it's just nothing, the Laws make the universe a 'place', and all other Laws support the First Law. (I don't know other words to explain it, it just 'is'. ) I'll spend sometime modelling a different universe but it isn't easy trying to think of things which we've never experienced or dealt with, I'm thinking of an entity which is bound by a multi dimensional universe, where a parrallel on a lattice like spiderweb, Links everything In the universe and where the dispersion of 'the entity' could be maintained equally because the 'entity', has the potential to travel anywhere in the universe but still be relatively close to all other entities, because of the 4-5d universe.(Bolding mine)
Flat out, full-bore, pedal-to-the-metal, WIERD.

(When I'm done I'll post about It and explain using a different example how the laws of the Universe are created by one initial law, which spontaneously occurs, it is super-natural thought, and isn't something which can be replicated, that's all I've tried to suggest using theory.)
I, for one , wait with bated breath.

Cheers,
Dave

Edit to add bolding.

[tkingdoll]

It was theory, do you see the difference between theory and 'fact'?

I think the main problem is that he doesn't.

[Kopji]

I think it was Douglas Adams who drew a satirical comparison to this kind of reasoning when a puddle of water was admired for being designed to exactly fit the hole that it filled.

Likewise, the water and hole exist in a state of perfect obedience to God.

Only people have the ability to deny God in all this perfect order, and can be kufr or the opposite of Islam. So using this example, atheists are wrong because they (well, we) deny the self evident truth of the perfect obedience of the water in the hole, testifying there is a God.

How does he know there is only one God?

[NobbyNobbs]

a) It's energy it's not matter there would be no force behind the diffusion besides causing a balance and the energys charge would cause it to react that way. (I'll explain later)

b) Yes, and no. (the photons are the smalls particles of energy released in the clashs.)


Ok, so if the energy has "charge" causing it to react some way, there *is* another law somewhere between his first (energy exists) and his second (it becomes matter). What is this law?

Secondly, yes and no? Ironic, that when asked if "energy particles" mean "photons" he would answer yes and no. Please explain to him that we are asking about the definition of his terms, not about particle/wave duality.

[lenny]

How do I know? A physicist told me so, and he's smarter than you, plus he knows what he's talking about. But he was too tired to explain why."

why would a skeptic appeal to authority? esp a tired authority who failed to produce reason or evidence?

[lenny]

You don't even need to do that much: just ask him for the equations for this theory. Because that's what physics is: a mathematical theory of the universe.

ummm. so you know a physicist that has the equations you ask of "him"?

our physics describes, it does not govern.

If there's no math, there's no theory, and you're dealing with philosophy and not physics.

i expect "he" would answer that we do not know the equations, but that they are in "god" or with "god" or some such.

do you believe that equations which govern the universe exist? and if so, how is that belief different from a (pure faith-based) belief in god?

is it not also religous belief, not a scientific belief?

[fuelair]

Scientific Laws and theories are not created by the things and actions they describe (the Laws) or explain (the Theories). They are descriptions of occurences by intelligent observers that are multipally observed (Laws) and explanations of occurences based on multiple experiments and observations made by intelligent observers/experimenters (Theories). Things and actions are independent of any observations, descriptions or experiments we may make or perform. As stated, the problem at top is meaningless.

[lenny]

Things and actions are independent of any observations, descriptions or experiments we may make or perform.

you sure you want the word "experiments" in that list?

or observations?

and do you really wish to claim that the "intelligent observers " are not among the "the things and actions"?

i'd like to agree with where you are going, but some of the details seem not to fit...

[fuelair]

you sure you want the word "experiments" in that list?

or observations?

and do you really wish to claim that the "intelligent observers " are not among the "the things and actions"?

i'd like to agree with where you are going, but some of the details seem not to fit...

things: particles,atoms, molecules etc. may be affected individually or in small groups by an experimenter (and in a quantum sense an observer MAY affect a particle or two) but as a class (all the things in the universe) they are not. And their existence certainly (no experimenter/observers during the formative period and for quite a while after)was unaffected by either.

Essentially the same for actions: the big bang, formation of gas clouds, galaxies, stars, the elements, planets etc. the combinations of atoms into molecules etc. did not require and for the most part do not require experimenters or observers and are functionally unaffected by same on any reasonable time scale or quantity scale. Yes, I can combine some atoms into molecules that might not otherwise have come into existence at that time and place - but that is insignificent in comparison to the quantity of occurences not resultant from experiments or other purposeful actions.

[Ziggurat]

ummm. so you know a physicist that has the equations you ask of "him"?

Well, I know OF such physicists. Not personally, but that's not relevant.

our physics describes, it does not govern.

Yes, but it describes with math. If you can't put it into math, then you can't make predictions, and it's not a physics theory. It's just ideas.

i expect "he" would answer that we do not know the equations, but that they are in "god" or with "god" or some such.

At which point, it's either philosophy or religion. And that's my point: it can even be completely correct, but without any equations, it sure as hell isn't physics.

do you believe that equations which govern the universe exist?

"Govern"? I'm not even sure what you mean by that. But what I DO believe is that mathematical models are the best possible way to describe physical reality and make predictions of physical systems.

and if so, how is that belief different from a (pure faith-based) belief in god?

Well, for one thing, the mathematical models which get used also get tested (in other words, we know that there are many mathematical models which work very well), and for another, my belief does not preclude the possibility of some non-mathematical model from being of use. I just wouldn't call it physics, for one thing, and for another, I don't think I've ever seen a non-mathematical model of ANY physical system which can make non-trivial predictions.

is it not also religous belief, not a scientific belief?

Nope.