Human wisdom - The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy explained
Let’s state the law first:
“The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.
The total quantity of matter and energy available in the closed system is a fixed amount and never any more or less.â€
Some people (usually creationists) will argue that this contradicts what is happening on earth or in our solar system. For example: plants could not live without external energy source, our sun.
They will say something like following: “how come that earth is getting this extra energy when law clearly states that total quantity of energy is always fixed amount.†It is very easy to spot a mistake there (or deception). They forgot to include phrase “in the closed systemâ€.
Well, explanation for that is that earth is not in the closed system. The whole universe is, and total amount of energy in the whole universe will never change. Energy might take another shape, or matter may become energy, but the results will always be equal to total amount of energy.
Think of the universe as a closed system. As far as we know there is nothing outside of it, so universe has to use whatever energy it has within it in order to survive and function, while our earth can “borrow†energy from external sources like our sun.
So explanation is: Earth is not in the closed system. Universe is. It is as simple as that.
Galaxies, stars, planets and solar systems can borrow energy from another as much as they like, but the total amount of energy in the whole universe will always stay the same.
It is a zero sum game.
You can also use poker analogy. Let’s say we have 4 players and each has $100 to play with. Total money (or you can say energy) amount will be $400. Sometimes person 1 can have $200 and person 2 only $50, person 3 $150, but sometimes person 1 can have only $50. Amount of money (energy) between players changes all the time, but total amount will always be $400.
Now, we get to the really tough question. If total amount of energy is always the same, then big bang might be beginning of time/space but not the energy itself, since that would violate the Law.
Well, then easy answer is that universe probably always existed in some form or another, it is our perception that nothing is “default state” that is wrong. We always assume that “nothing†has to come first, that “nothing†is the beginning, or that default state is “nothingâ€, and then comes “somethingâ€. Why?
I don’t think there is a contradiction in the law at all. Universe always existed in some form or the other.
Another explanation might be that our universe is not closed system but it is part of the even larger system (like our sun is part of the galaxy and our galaxy is part of the universe and so on) and that the big bang is just another of million other explosions.
There are lots of theories to consider before you start invoking supernatural which does not answer anything nor does it help critical thinking. To me, invoking supernatural is the easy and cowardly way out.
October 10th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Hey 220V,
Couple things.
1.) We are not sure that the Universe is a closed system. It seems that way, but when you really think about it, it might not be. For example, the hole from the Big Bang may still be spewing out matter into our Universe. We just don’t know.
2.) Creationists could be right. We can’t prove that the Universe wasn’t created. It seems to me you have a disdain for Creationist, that you should probably lose, or evolve. I agree we shouldn’t believe in Fairy Tales, or hold them to be absolutely true. But if someone else wants to, fine.
I used to be very arguementative with them, but now a days, I see that I can prove my points no more so than they can theirs. So what it comes down to is that you believe what you believe, because you believe it. Personally, I believe there is a God, but I am more of a Diest when it comes to explaining God, and I try real hard not to Humanize God. To me, God is the Universe and Everything in it. I need not explain it further.
October 10th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Scorch,
I agree completely on point 1)
However, need to make some comments on your point 2)
“We can’t prove that the Universe wasn’t created.” This is an old argument. First, burden of proof is on them (creationist) and not me since they are the ones that claim that. You cannot just say something like ” I know there is a butt fucking monkey living somewhere in the universe, and you cannot disprove it.” True, I cannot disprove it since in order to disprove something I would have to examine and look at every corner of the universe, so burden of proof is not on me. I can easily make stuff up and dare someone to disprove it. They cannot disprove Zeus or Poseidon, but we are pretty sure they don’t exists.
“I used to be very argumentative with them, but now a days, I see that I can prove my points no more so than they can theirs.”
I disagree with this statement. I think that someone can very well disprove lot of their points easily. It is like saying that you don’t want to argue with an adult believing in Santa Claus since his theory that Santa exists is as valid as yours that does not exists. Every rational person would back your side up.
Your view of God is definitely Einsteinian view which is healthy i guess.
For example Einstein believed that God is everything beyond scientific explanation, but as science closes the gaps every day, that deity is getting much smaller.
I was talking more of of the personal, religious God, but I get it we are on same page.
October 10th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Hi moody,
Its always nice to talk to you. This could get interesting.
Burden of proof as you say, is only on them, because you, not them, require proof. See how that works?
And sure, most probably cannot say the bit about the “butt fucking monkey” the question is, is this what you believe and, more importantly I think you would agree, why?
I’ll try not to get into the finer details as the moment, but as hopefully you shall see, you are setting the stage for debate in sort of a rigged fashion. You questions are not questions, but rather accusations of ignorance. And sure, ignorance is not good, but it is bliss. And what’s the point of being “right” anyway?
Sometimes you seem to view Einstein, and other scientists, in an almost “God-like” fashion. And whilst I can certainly appreciate genius, and beauty, I by no means think that they are any more wise about the world than the creationists…
Let me phrase this another way. We are all talking about the same thing, we are just using different words. Make sense?
Here is a quote from the Tao:
Chapter 1.
The Dao that can be named is not the eternal Dao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name; this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all mystery.
October 10th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
for the record I consider myself a Taoist Deist Objectivist with a hint of Altruism
October 10th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
“Burden of proof as you say, is only on them, because you, not them, require proof. See how that works?”
I don’t require proof. In order for me to believe in something I need at least some kind of evidence which is not the proof. Nothing is 100%, but there is a big difference between blind belief (belief with no evidence) and scientific theory which is independently tested over and over and always shows same results. Scientific theory is closest we”ll get to the proof.
“And sure, most probably cannot say the bit about the “butt fucking monkey†the question is, is this what you believe and, more importantly I think you would agree, why?”
Belief has nothing to do with it. Evidence is the only way. If you blindly believe that there is butt fucking monkey somewhere and you cannot offer any evidence or why, then you are not mentally stable to hold any kind of job in this world. I think you would agree.
“Sometimes you seem to view Einstein, and other scientists, in an almost “God-like†fashion.”
isn’t that ironic eh? Not at all. I just admire them.
“I by no means think that they are any more wise about the world than the creationists…”
Lets take a look at this statement little closer.
Einstein- Nobel prise winner. Changed physics and the way we look at the world forever. Explained one of the most complex problems in the world and universe with short one inch foruma E=mc^2
I can go on for hours about other scientists. Like invention of penicillin, Tesla’s AC, transistors, pretty much everything you see and do around you is thanks to those scientists. Everything including, cars, planes, PC’s, pills, medical advancements ect.
Creationists-Believe earth is 6,000 years old, believe in virgin birth, burning bush, parting of the sea, angles ect, and as far as I know they don’t contribute anything to society except whining about 10 commandments not being displayed in court rooms, complaining about creationism not being though as a science (yeah that will be the day), and contributing big chunk of their paycheck to churches.
Yeah ughh ((sarcastic cough), I can clearly see equal wisdom in the two.
October 10th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
The thing is, they don’t blindly believe. They believe based off of how they were raised, their feelings and their interpretation of the world around them.
I think you try to stereo-type them in hopes of dismantling their belief’s, perhaps in hopes of persuading them that they should give up their belief’s. Why exactly I am not sure? What is it you hope to achieve with your criticisms?
Einstein was smart, but, E=MC² is not all that. Its an important step, but we still have so many more, but I digress.
As for modern things, some would argue we were much happier in our tribal days. Of course, we are evolving, and that is why we have/need modern things, in order to survive. I just hope we don’t kill our cultures and belief’s in hopes of making things “bettter”.
October 11th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
“The thing is, they don’t blindly believe. They believe based off of how they were raised, their feelings and their interpretation of the world around them.”
That’s blind belief.
“Einstein was smart, but, E=MC² is not all that.”
There are still physicist today that find new things in that formula. it is far more complex then you think. Once you start digging deep into GR and SR you will see how complex it is , but elegant in the same way.
As far as your other comments, I was not talking about happiness. If blind belief is making someone happy and comfortable, then by all means believe as long as you don’t impose it on me or society (schools, army, court etc like they are trying to do)
I’d rather open my mind to evidence to get closer to then truth, then be comfortable.
I am perfectly happy in life, so i don’t need to invent any imaginary external forces. I am not saying something is not out there, but so far evidence is really thin.
It is ok to dream and fantasize. If the bible or koraan is the only thing that gives you morality, that without it you would kill, lie, rape or steal, then by ll means follow it, but not everyone needs it. Some are satisfied with their own mind, family , friends and society. No external forces necessary.
“What is it you hope to achieve with your criticisms?”
Criticism is healthy and necessary. Without it we are nothing. We are robots. Every good change comes from criticism.
I am not trying to persuade anyone, but I do love arguing. It is good to exercise your neurons.
“I’d rather argue without ever finding an answer, then find an answer without arguing”
Albert Einstein
October 11th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
““The thing is, they don’t blindly believe. They believe based off of how they were raised, their feelings and their interpretation of the world around them.â€
That’s blind belief.”
That’s not blind belief for me. It is for you, and I understand that, but not for me. For me blind belief is believing something without really believing it. Saying you do, but not really feeling it.
What has happen to you where someone else’s belief’s have been imposed on you?
You sound like an Ad for Atheism. Its not that people can’t be moral without the Bible/Koran/Whatever, its more that these things help some to do so. Its a sense of ancestry, and of believing in more than just this life, and what you think about it.
Me, I don’t need these things to be moral. I do that of my own freewill because I value this ideal, and what to see it spread.
As for your response to criticism, good job! I’m a cynic, and I am cynical about your cynicism!
October 15th, 2007 at 11:06 am
What we have done is simply replace one truth hierarchy with another. If priests in the past told us the world was corrupt, and misleading… Then the scientists of today only echo that same sentiment. That we as mear mortals cannot trust our own human instinct, or our own sences, but instead put our faith in scientific dogma. Like the religions of old, Science has only replaced religious dogma with its own.
October 15th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
“What we have done is simply replace one truth hierarchy with another.”
Saying that the earth is round and other nonsense is not the truth. it wasn’t truth back there nor is it truth today.
That is not how science work. There is no dogma in science. Science never intended to replace religion. Science just happens to be there. When scientists discover new things or explain things, they don’t have religion in mind at all. They just observe and try to explain factual evidence and then form hypothesis and later on theories. Some religious leaders then see the threat and tries to contradict it with some insane explanations. I don’t think Darwin said: “let me think of something that will contradict creation. Hmmm what could I think of? oh yeah evolution will do that, and then there was evolution”
That is nonsense.
Science is not biased. It just is.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Religios have asked us to not trust ourselves, but instead bow to scripture, and to the authority of Priests, now Science tells us to bow to objective observation, experimentation, and scientific experts. Can you not see the parallels - You can compare the Patriarchs of the Bible ( Abraham, Isaac, Moses,etc.) to the Patriarchs of science… (Gallileo,Newton,Einstein) why are these scientists given revrence by referring to them as “THE FATHER” of this or of that. Religion had it’s Inquisition- but since the sole called scientific “Enlightenment” Society has done much worse. Since this “enlightenment” we have seen the re-emergance of slavery, nazi holocaust, nuclear holocaust, and most recently global warming.
Human civilization has been plagued, by organized Truth- Be it Religion, or Science. We need to return to trusting our own instincts, and our own Human nature.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Even though you make some interesting points, you’re missing the point. Science is not asking anyone to bow to anything. People are the ones that abuse science. Science is not people.
Now, you will probably say same thing could be said about religion. That people are abusing religion, but that is only partially true.
Fundamentalists are ones who follow religion like it was supposed to be followed. They want to stone gays since it says right in the Bible. They want to convert everyone to Islam since it says right there in Koraan. They read it as it is.
Science does not work that way. Science along with (and I agree with you here) our own instincts are probably the best thing we have in this world.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:41 am
You have made my point - Take Religion and Science… Both are tools used by men to minipulate, and distort knowledge, and information for self serving personal gain. Both science and religion are inherantly good for society as a whole. My point though - which you made in the above statement, is that both can, and have been used to manipulate TRUTH. Science has justified such things as the hydrogen bomb, slavery, jewish holocaust… and on and on. Though the benefits of science may appear to outweigh the abusses, one single individual could use science to destroy all that we are. Before we know it we will believe those prophetic words of George Orwell — ” Peace is War”
October 26th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
I like this Chris fella
me, I’m a little scientific, and a little faith-based.
Moderation seems to be a good path…
October 26th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Define “faith” based. What is faith for you?
We might be on the same page but using different terms.
For example: if you take a ball and drop it. It will fall to the ground. Now, you might say “I have “faith” that next time I drop it ball will fall to the ground again. if that is the faith you are talking about then we are on the same page.
That actually is not really a faith but belief based on factual evidence. We have theory of gravity and observational evidence that show us that ball will fall on the ground again and again. Religious faith has nothing to do with it.
I am talking strictly about religious faith which is based on no evidence, observational fact and cannot be tested.
October 27th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
my faith is believing in God
I have no “facts” to back up this claim. Just what I believe to be evidence of design. And of course my own feelings.
October 27th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
What evidence of design you have? Before you answer this, just to let you know that all of the theories of intelligent design have been debunked. In the court or outside.
Just don’t say “complexity of life” or “fine tuned universe”, since these are so childish and easily debunked that it is not even funny. Tell me you got something more.
October 28th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
I am not trying to convince you sir, that would be an exercise in futility.
The design I see is my own view, nothing more.
October 28th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
All I was trying to do is to see it from your perspective.
No need to call me sir, but if you insist
October 28th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
O’ thought I already did that back on Oct. 10th.
“To me, God is the Universe and Everything in it.”
The below site has Einstein’s thoughts on God, you may enjoy it:
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/einsteinsgod/einstein-religionandscience.shtml
April 14th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
[...] We all know stories and science fiction novels about traveling back to in time and further into the future. We also know about time travel paradoxes. Most famous being grandfather paradox. It goes like this: If you went back in time and killed your grandfather, you would not exists since he would not be able to have children of his own. He would be dead and you would’ve never been born. But, if you weren’t born you would not be able to go back in time to kill your grandfather in the first place since you didn’t exist, but obviously you do exist and you did go back in time and you did kill your grandfather. This creates a logical paradox and big inconsistency in logical thinking. But we’ll come back to this later in the article. There’s another paradox which physicist don’t talk about, but to me it seams like even stranger paradox than the grandfather one. I’m sure someone else though of this but I’ll just state it. It goes like this: Today is 2008, and let’s suppose you go back to 2006 and meet yourself. Now there’s two of you. How would that be possible without violating Conservation of Energy Law, which states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. Obviously since there’s two of you occupying same space and time, one of you was created. Either that or you are leaving copies of yourself on every instance (frame) in time which would violate the law even further. [...]