Help a newbie: Causation and my confusion regarding physics

[Causation]

Hi everyone,

I've been watching a BBC programme called Wonders of the Universe, a basic introduction to the laws of astrophysics, etc, and watching it has left me with a question I'd love to have answered. I know nothing about physics aside from the basics of that programme and a Google search brought me to this forum, so hopefully you can enlighten me.

My question is this:

If physics is irrevocably based upon the notion of causation, then doesn't it follow that causation must be infinite? Otherwise, we must believe that 'something' came from 'nothing', which is impossible in physics, I assume. Yet if causation is infinite, wouldn't that mean the law of entropy is impossible, as under that law complete disorder would be inevitable in a world of infinite causation. In turn, true disorder would lead to a cessation of causation, rendering the law of causation inconstant and therefore fallible in an epistemological context?

I hope I'm phrasing this is a manner that people can digest - apologies for that. I've only just started thinking about it and I don't know enough about the subject to word it properly.

 

[Smiles302]

Expand on what you mean by causation being infinite...

Simply because physics is based on a concept doesn't make the concept infinite.? I might be reading you wrong...

You might find it easier to explain your idea in simple terms. Don't use physics terms simply to be using physics terms. Even Einstein wrote in plain German =D

 

[JaredJames]

I've been watching a BBC programme called Wonders of the Universe, a basic introduction to the laws of astrophysics, etc, and watching it has left me with a question I'd love to have answered. I know nothing about physics aside from the basics of that programme and a Google search brought me to this forum, so hopefully you can enlighten me.

I started watching that, and frankly was disappointed by some of the things they were saying. I stopped at the point they said a descending aircraft cancels out gravity. :grumpy:

Word of warning on that show.

 

[Causation]

Hey guys,

Sorry, here's (hopefully) a better explanation for what I'm thinking.

In astrophysics, there's an assumption that 'causality' is at the core of everything that happens, such as the Big Bang creating the universe and the arrow of time that results. Everything happens as a result of something else.

In the absence of that causality, nothing in physics can 'restart' causality, as that is creating something from nothing. Therefore causality is either infinite and perpetual, or it is not. If it is infinite, then the law of entropy (where everything tends towards disorder) is false, as a universe of perpetual causality cannot also be hurtling towards complete entropy.

If causality isn't infinite, however, then physics as we know it cannot explain the universe, as that implies that something CAN be created from nothing.

 

[Smiles302]

Define causality. Then replace each "causality" with that definition.

Form it entirely with terms you are familiar with and then see if it still makes sense to you.

Is causality a something? If nothing else exists does causality still exist?

 

[Causation]

Define causality. Then replace each "causality" with that definition.

Form it entirely with terms you are familiar with and then see if it still makes sense to you.

Is causality a something? If nothing else exists does causality still exist?

Replace causality with 'constant change' and I think that should do it. So ...

In astrophysics, there's an assumption that constant change is at the core of everything that happens, such as the Big Bang creating the universe and the arrow of time that results. Everything happens as a result of something else.

In the absence of that constant change, nothing in physics can 'restart' it, as that is creating something from nothing under the laws of physics. Therefore constant change is either infinite and perpetual, or it is not.

If it is infinite, then the law of entropy (where everything tends towards disorder) is false, as a universe of perpetual change cannot also be hurtling towards complete entropy, which is a consistent state.

If constant change isn't infinite, however, then physics as we know it cannot explain the universe, as that implies that something CAN be created from nothing.

 

[SplitInfinity]

As related to another post in another topic...causality and the law that information cannot be destroyed as a result of entropy...as Hawkins disproved his own theory...one must take into account the interconnectivity of all Universal states in a Multiverse to show that where some Universes have Black Holes that eventually entropy to nothingness...this is canceled out by Universes without Black Holes...thus in it's totality...nothing is truly lost. Split Infinity

 

[Causation]

As related to another post in another topic...causality and the law that information cannot be destroyed as a result of entropy...as Hawkins disproved his own theory...one must take into account the interconnectivity of all Universal states in a Multiverse to show that where some Universes have Black Holes that eventually entropy to nothingness...this is canceled out by Universes without Black Holes...thus in it's totality...nothing is truly lost. Split Infinity

Hi Split Infinity. Thanks for the reply.

I don't study physics and know nothing about it, aside from what I've seen in what appears to be a very basic introduction in a TV show. Still, I'm not sure what you've posted relates directly to what I was saying, so I'd appreciate a little more hand holding! The term multiverse, in particular, might need a brief explanation. Does that take the discussion into quantum physics? Also, I'm under the impression that we don't understand black holes enough to bring them into 'factual' statements, they remain theoretical?

The way I understand it, a law of physics states that everything tends towards entropy? This TV show claims the universe is 'dying' as such and that everything effectively falls to disorder due to entropy and the arrow of time. That's how I interpreted it anyway.

At the same time, we are asked to believe that nothing can exist without causality, therefore causality must always have been, or else 'something' was created from 'nothing'. I know that's a chicken and egg statement, but the point is: does it not prove that either 'nothing' once existed, in the language of physics, or else that the law of entropy is false?

 

[SplitInfinity]

CAUS...a perfect example of entropy is a Black Hole. In our Universe...it will eventually blink out of existence. This would go against many laws one of that all particle information cannot be lost. But yet...by what is seen in Black Holes...it does. Hawkins spent years first trying to prove that this was so but then aswered his critics by showing that even though in our Universe...entropy and particle information loss was occurring...in others it was quite the opposite and that you had to look at the problem in a Multiversal state rather than looking at what was occurring in just one Universe of a number of infinite ones all tied together. Split Infinity

 

[Causation]

CAUS...a perfect example of entropy is a Black Hole. In our Universe...it will eventually blink out of existence. This would go against many laws one of that all particle information cannot be lost. But yet...by what is seen in Black Holes...it does. Hawkins spent years first trying to prove that this was so but then aswered his critics by showing that even though in our Universe...entropy and particle information loss was occurring...in others it was quite the opposite and that you had to look at the problem in a Multiversal state rather than looking at what was occurring in just one Universe of a number of infinite ones all tied together. Split Infinity

I think I understand what you are saying, especially after discovering a good article on the nature of entropy, which I will paste in below, for anyone who reads this thread. Multiverses allow the quantity of energy in a universe to change?

The key point for my discussion, however, is highlighted in bold below, but I have no problem with the writer's dismissal of it, because he explains entropy in a manner that makes more sense to me now.

What follows here is the writing of someone else, not me:

"The concept of entropy is generally not well understood among laymen. With the help of several physicists, including Wolfgang Gasser and Malcolm Schreiber, I have composed the following article in an attempt to correct a common misunderstanding.[1] Contrary to what many laymen think, there is no Law of Entropy which states that order must always decrease. That is a layman's fiction, although born from a small kernel of reality. The actual Law of Entropy is better known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The First Law is that energy is not created or destroyed, and the Third Law is that absolute zero cannot be achieved--each of these laws is actually entailed from the first, in conjunction with certain other assumptions. But it is the Second Law that many laymen incorrectly think says that order must always decrease.

In traditional thermodynamics, entropy is a measure of the amount of energy in a closed system that is no longer available to effect changes in that system. A system is closed when no energy is being added to or removed from it, and energy becomes unavailable not by leaving the system, but by becoming irretrievably disordered, as a consequence of the laws of statistical mechanics. But even though the total amount of energy that is irretrievably disordered will increase, this does not mean order cannot increase somewhere else in that same system. This is where confusion arises. Of course, entropy can be measured in an open system, too, but this introduces additional variables, and of course the Second Law then no longer applies. But even when the Second Law applies, it is still possible for a closed system to produce order, even highly elaborate order, so long as there is a greater increase in disorder somewhere else in the system.

Consider, for example, how the atmosphere remains attached to Earth in an orderly sphere rather than just wandering off at random. In fact, though a layman would say this system is highly ordered and doesn't become notably disordered over time (billions of years and the air is still here), the entropy of this system does increase: though a relatively orderly arrangement of gases around Earth is also produced, at the same time a large quantity of energy has become disordered as a result. For example, friction created by the impact of these gas molecules striking the Earth and each other produces heat that ultimately radiates off into space. Thus, the Second Law is conserved: the total amount of disordered energy is increased, even as a visible increase in order is produced. Thus, though an increase in entropy entails an increase in disorder, it does so only overall, and therefore as long as the amount of energy that becomes ordered is less than the amount of energy that becomes disordered, any amount of order can arise in a closed system without violating the Second Law.[2] The natural universe is filled with examples of local order being produced by increasing overall entropy: the structure of atoms has this effect on crystalization, the nature of subatomic particles has an ordering effect on the sorts of molecules that can form, and so on.[3] In fact, the whole of chemistry, the foundation of life, is an ideal example. Hence the Second Law cannot be invoked against a natural origin of life, since under certain conditions there can be a significant increase in order while the total amount of disordered energy also increases.[4]

Seen on a cosmic scale, although an increase in entropy entails an increase in the quantity of energy in the universe that is irretrievably disordered, this is not the same thing as a tendency toward disorder everywhere in the universe, since the rest of the energy in the universe still has to be accounted for, and could behave in any number of ways, depending on the forces and structures found there. Of course, though in a closed system the quantity of energy that is irretrievably disordered increases, that very same energy can be reordered by an expenditure of new energy introduced to the system. Or by allowing some of the disordered energy to escape a system, the entropy of that system can be made to decrease. But either way, we still increase the quantity of disordered energy in the universe, and so far as we know it can never be otherwise. Thus, the total amount of order in the universe will certainly decrease (though due to the Third Law it will never disappear entirely), yet even as this happens, parts of the universe can continue to become more orderly without violating the Second Law.

In fact, order can only be produced by increasing entropy. This is because producing order out of chaos involves a change in the system, which can only be produced by expending energy. The expenditure of energy is never perfectly efficient and so it always increases the overall amount of energy that is irretrievably disordered, even as order is produced from the remaining energy. Since ordering requires an increase in entropy, it is a bit ironic to find creationists claiming entropy as an anti-ordering process (which it is not) in order to "prove" special creation, when it would make more sense to use it as an ordering process to "prove" divine arrangement of the laws of physics. However, I must head off such a switch-hitting strategy. There is no sign of intelligent design in the Second Law. It is actually the only logical way that any mindless, material universe would operate. Since it is the logically necessary result of any universe which contains bits of mass-energy that never change in quantity, all that is needed for this law to materialize is such a universe, leaving no room for any intelligent tinkering--except at the point of the creation of those bits of stuff or the space and time in which they move, but that is another story. When we examine the Second Law alone, we see that it would be the natural result of any undesigned but merely existing universe, which contained an unchanging quantity of bits. At the same time, we see that this law prevails over and defines every change in the universe we happen to be in, and yet in no way prevents natural order from arising--so long as energy becomes disordered in producing it.

 

[SplitInfinity]

CAUS...also...it would seem that the reason we have such a hard time trying to figure out certain natural laws or figure out how to connect the Quantum world with the Macro world...is that these laws seem to be the result of the interconnectivity of Multi-Universal states. Looking at our natural laws without taking this into account tends to garnish much confusion. Split Infinity

 

[SplitInfinity]

Caus...The only problem I have with the article is the...Point Of Creation...comment. This assumes that it is a natural law or condition that there has to be a point in time where there is nothing. We as Humans view things with beginnings and endings. This is probably not true in a Multiversal reality. Split Infinity

 

[Drakkith]

At the same time, we are asked to believe that nothing can exist without causality, therefore causality must always have been, or else 'something' was created from 'nothing'. I know that's a chicken and egg statement, but the point is: does it not prove that either 'nothing' once existed, in the language of physics, or else that the law of entropy is false?

I just want to point out that the idea that the universe came from nothing is up in the air. There are several different theories on the life and death of the universe, with the predominate one being the idea that the universe was once compressed into an extremely small volume and due to some event (we call it the big bang) started to expand and eventually reached the size that we are at now. The future of the universe is thought to either result in an eventual heat death of everything, or a big rip in which the acceleration becomes so great it eventually overpowers all other forces holding matter together. This is the predominate theory because of our observations of accelerating expansion of the universe.

This is all a result of our observations and interpretation of the data. Though honestly I don't think there really is any other way to interpret the data logically. There is still so much we don't know. For example, we believe that the universe, right after the big bang, went through a period called Inflation, where it increased in size extremely quickly. On the order of doubling its size about a thousand times in under a second. For some reason this inflation then stopped and the universe expanded at a greatly reduced rate afterwards. If we think inflation happened, it seems possible that the reverse might suddenly happen as well, where the universe suddenly stops accelerating and starts to reverse and collapse in on itself at some point in the future, eventually ending up in a Big Crunch. (Which could theoretically result in a new big bang afterward)

So while the evidence points us in one way right now, there is always a chance that we might not have the whole picture, and indeed that we probably do not.

 

[ZapperZ]

Locked, pending moderation.

For those of you who forgot about the PF Rules that you had agreed to, please re-read it, especially our policy on speculative theories.

Zz.