Sic transit gloria mundi. . .
I was thinking about physics again... I find it interesting the reasoning that they use and the evidence that they have, and then the bizarre leaps from evidence to theory. For example, if you see that light is wavelike and can be shifted (like the Doppler effect of a passing train) depending on the motions, and everything in the heavens is shifted toward the red end of the spectrum, you can pretty safely conclude that everything is going away from everything else. I'm fine to this point. Turn time on its head, run the tape backwards, and everything is going toward everything else. This suggests that the universe had a beginning and so forth, called the "Big Bang Theory" - which the Church said in the fifties was a good theory in terms of revelation. I'm fine to this point as well. My problem comes at the other end of the tape.
Is the expansion of the various galaxies moving fast enough to escape the inevitable pull of gravitation? Is there a break point where it all comes tumbling back together? Although this would be a fiery and exciting end of the world, I just don't see it coming to pass that way. Plus, most of the Physicists who believe in the big crunch just think everything starts all over again, bang, crunch, bang, crunch . . . this kind of endless repetition I find personally distasteful, like watching an NBA game - back and forth.
I like the idea of heat-death. Thermodynamic equilibrium. Every closed system tends to thermodynamic equilibrium, from more usable energy to less, to a uniform temperature and pressure with no disturbances. In stars, this is done by nuclear reactions that change Hydrogen (and later, Helium) into stuff (I won't say "atoms") with much higher entropy - most notably iron. To avoid wasting any more time - basically, stars run out of fuel, burn out or explode. The entire universe approaches thermodynamic equilibrium where all matter is turned into energy and all energy degenerates into heat energy and there is a vast expanse of simply radiating heat glowing a barely above absolute zero (-273C).
I guess maybe how one looks at the end of the universe is probably based on how a person views the world - the essentially optimistic enternal return of the same - or we're all tending in a direction, but that direction is not good, kind of like a negative teleologist.
but, typically, I digress
Is the expansion of the various galaxies moving fast enough to escape the inevitable pull of gravitation? Is there a break point where it all comes tumbling back together? Although this would be a fiery and exciting end of the world, I just don't see it coming to pass that way. Plus, most of the Physicists who believe in the big crunch just think everything starts all over again, bang, crunch, bang, crunch . . . this kind of endless repetition I find personally distasteful, like watching an NBA game - back and forth.
I like the idea of heat-death. Thermodynamic equilibrium. Every closed system tends to thermodynamic equilibrium, from more usable energy to less, to a uniform temperature and pressure with no disturbances. In stars, this is done by nuclear reactions that change Hydrogen (and later, Helium) into stuff (I won't say "atoms") with much higher entropy - most notably iron. To avoid wasting any more time - basically, stars run out of fuel, burn out or explode. The entire universe approaches thermodynamic equilibrium where all matter is turned into energy and all energy degenerates into heat energy and there is a vast expanse of simply radiating heat glowing a barely above absolute zero (-273C).
I guess maybe how one looks at the end of the universe is probably based on how a person views the world - the essentially optimistic enternal return of the same - or we're all tending in a direction, but that direction is not good, kind of like a negative teleologist.
but, typically, I digress
It just goes to show that you should not attempt to write something coherent first thing in the morning very hung over after a very very hard night of drinking. Digression appears as the thesis wanes.
Argued by
beitiathustra |
10:37 PM