Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics and cosmology

Hi Ron,

Of course you can pose a question to us! That's why we're here!

For other readers who may not understand your question, here is a website which outlines the "Kalam cosmology" argument. (Also, here is a rebuttal of the argument!)

Your question was the first time I had heard of this argument, which either says something about the gaps in my education or about how (not) well-known this argument is among astrophysicists. I think all cosmologists would agree with the premise that the universe had a beginning in time, but certainly not all would agree that this implies the existence of a creator of the universe. Frankly, I can't see that the thermodynamic argument adds up to much: he uses it to try and show that the universe had a beginning, (an idea certainly supported by astrophysics) but again, I don't think this necessarily implies there has to be a creator.

To be honest, this kind of philosphical argument doesn't have much to do with the way cosmologists (people who study the universe) do business. We try to come up with theories based on physical laws we understand from other contexts (such as general relativity) which make predictions about the universe that we can test by making observations. We try to test our theories and prove them wrong, rather than looking for evidence to prove them right. Hopefully we are getting closer to a better understanding of the universe, but we don't claim to have the absolute truth.

The 'oscillating universe' is a nice idea but I wouldn't say it's the currently accepted view. I think a fair summary of the current consensus is that:

• the universe had a beginning, 10-20 billion years ago
• we can trace the physics of the early universe almost, but not quite to this beginning ('the Big Bang')
• the superstring theory may be the correct description of the universe all the way back to the Big Bang but we don't know yet.

I would add that the question of whether a 'Prime Mover' (ie what many people would call 'God') is required for the universe to exist is not something that astronomers and physicists agree on, or even talk about very much. I know some astrophysicists who are quite devout in their particular faiths and also quite a few who are atheists. Most are somewhere in between and don't think that religious arguments have anything to do with their science.

Some reading I would recommend is "The Whole Shebang", by Timothy Ferris, which gets more into discussing the interface between philosophy and physics than most books. Also good are "Lonely Hearts of the Cosmos" by Dennis Overbye (this one came out in 1991 so is a bit dated), and "Through a Universe Darkly" by Marcia Bartusiak. Good sources of shorter articles are general science magazines like Discover and Scientific American, and astronomy magazines like Sky & Telescope, Astronomy and Mercury.