There are several laws of thermodynamics, all of which have applications across the various scientific fields.  These laws also have deep philosophical implications, with the second law leading the charge in this regard.  I have already written two articles describing the first law (energy balance).  I will soon cover the depths of the second law, but I feel the need to discuss the most fundamental law beforehand.  Strangely enough, there is a law that comes before the first law.

 

The zeroth law of thermodynamics states that if two systems are in thermal equilibrium with an external system, then they are also in thermal equilibrium with one another.  Thermal equilibrium means that heat is not being exchanged between two systems.  When two systems having different temperatures come into contact with one another, they will inevitably experience heat transfer.  Once thermal conduction is complete, the collective system will arrive in thermal equilibrium.

A natural offshoot of the zeroth law is that if two surfaces baring different temperatures should come into contact, they will eventually both arrive at a common temperature, which lies somewhere between the two initial ones.  Put mathematically, if surface A with temp A presses up against surface B with temp B, both surfaces A and B will have temp C after some time such that temp A<C<B.  In a philosophical sense, the two systems will rub off on one another, or compromise, and find themselves altered, and after some time, identical, from a thermal energy standpoint.

The situation is analogous to what happens when two different cultures co-exist in a given environment.  When cultures mix in a defined space, all cultures involved tend to experience change as a result.  Non-Christians in North America, for example, are in the relative minority, and must endure Christmas music whenever shopping in December.  In the province of Quebec, the language of majority is French, and Anglophones who live there are certainly impacted by the cultural differences associated with the language differences.

In the end, a middle ground tends to be forged across cultures.  In Quebec, for example, businesses are allowed to have English signs, just as long as they have a smaller font size than the French ones.  Out-of-towners may think this is a joke, but there is actually a defined ratio between French to English font-size that is enforced.  As a resident of the province, it can sometimes feel like a mild dictatorship.

When two different surfaces come into contact, the temperature that is agreed upon is not necessarily half way in between the two initial ones.  If one surface belongs to a significantly larger body, the final temperature that is agreed upon will be closer to it than the small body that is causing the change.  In Star Wars, when a small ship strikes the death star, the death star is affected, but barely.  It is the same in society.  The larger culture tends to bend the smaller ones.  They may experience some change, but the smaller ones risk being eaten.

The big fear among cultures, particularly minority cultures, is assimilation.  Cultural assimilation implies the death of a culture, as its original life force would be lost.  Smaller religious groups, like Judaism, fear nothing more than dying out, being absorbed over time by more massive religions.  This is one reason why intermarriage is frowned upon by religious communities (particularly smaller ones).

 

The point that is not appreciated by religious leaders is that the cultural differences across different religions can make the human race collectively stronger.  It is the lack of acceptance throughout divided nations that threatens to divide it further.  Intolerance is the match that lights cultural differences aflame, and leads to a blaze of hate, which in a place like Israel, has burned for decades.

When cultures clash in a violent way, we can think of it as an act of heat transfer – two systems in search of thermal equilibrium.  Beware: a permanent state of equilibrium is a dangerous thing to search for, because it is our differences that define us.  They keep things fresh, offering different perspectives.  If one culture were to overtake all others, there would be no culture left.  Total assimilation is a bad thing.  Like the zeroth law says, identical temperatures do not exchange heat.  Similarly, commonality across all cultures would end the exchange of ideas, and in turn, slow progress.

 

It gets much worse.  The zeroth law implies that the universe would die out eventually were it not expanding quickly enough.  Were the universe to exist in a defined, enclosed space, all of the matter it contains would arrive at the same temperature sooner or later .  This would certainly represent the end of life in the universe, as without temperature gradients, the chemical and physical reactions that support life could no longer occur (not to mention the fact that the average temperature in the universe is currently around -270 degrees Celsius).  A thermodynamically bland universe is the death of the universe, and a bland society represents societal death.  Cultural differences are the spice of life.

It seems that sharing land will always require that compromises be made.  It would be nice though, if the mode in which these inevitable conflicts are resolved were respectful.  Think of the harmony of the zeroth law, as when a father warms his daughter’s hands by covering them with his own.  The skin in contact does not ask if it is fair to be exchanging heat.  It does not complain.  It simply follows the law.  People, on the other hand, are more complicated than the cells of which they are made – but that does not mean that they cannot learn from them.

On June 30, 1905, Albert Einstein proposed that the Universe worked much different than the way anyone alive had supposed it did.  In short, Einstein’s theory of special relativity claims that space and time are not absolute quantities, but are rather malleable, relative scales of measurement.  This astonishing statement, which has not been disproven in the 105 years that have passed since its inception, should boggle your mind unless you have been aware of it for some time.  As I tell my Modern Physics students, if special relativity does not disturb you to the core the first time you hear it, it is because you did not really hear it.  The theory, which has attained law status, goes against everything we observe in our day to day lives.  For this reason, special relativity, which shows that classical physics only applies perfectly to relatively stationary objects, went unnoticed for so long. 

It should be noted that Einstein did not notice that time dilates for two objects moving at relative speeds, he just had a strange intuition that light was special, and wished to understand it better.  His journey towards this understanding required a certain leap of faith.  When Einstein was on this historic path of discovery, he told his friends that he wanted to get inside the head of God, to which they replied, “Could you tell him to pick my 6/49 numbers?"

Special relativity is based on two claims, or postulates, which, at first, seem to be benign enough.  The first states that the laws of physics are the same for all inertial reference frames, and that no one frame is preferred over another.  An inertial reference frame is one that is either still or moves at a constant speed.  This postulate essentially says that the Universe operates the same for all individuals, even if they are moving with respect to one another.  Even though we may experience life in our own unique way, we are all governed by the same rules.  Moreover, everyone’s unique experience of life is equally valid; no point of view is preferred.  The Universe is equitable.

The second postulate is where the big leap of faith occurs.  Einstein made the assumption that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same when measured in any inertial reference frame.  This is a bold statement, which essentially claims that the constancy of the speed of light is a law of physics.  No matter what speed you are moving at, you measure that light whizzes by you at the same 300,000 km/s that it would if you were stationary.  It shows that Einstein loved light, and actually favoured it over space and time.  The compelling truth that emerges when we examine this postulate carefully is that time and space must adjust, or bend accordingly, to allow this apparent anomaly to take place.  His blind faith in the speed of light was surprisingly well-placed – that time and space adjust, or dilate, for objects moving at high speeds has been verified experimentally countless times, and never disproven.

As you warm up to this concept (if you had never heard it before, it will take some time to accept it), let us relate it to the very hot topic of religion (pun intended).  Special relativity has so many philosophical implications.  It states that we all view the world with the same lens, but make different conclusions on it because our reference frame is always unique.  Time and space bend to uniquely wrap around our perspective when we are moving at a specific speed.  Is our perception of time and space correct?  Is it wrong?  It is neither – our perception simply is our perception.  Everyone comes to a unique conclusion about life, since their reference frame is unique.  Our lives exist in the same Universe, and obey all the same rules, yet we observe life differently than the next person.  However, and this is key, no reference frame is preferred; all are equally correct.

The relativity of simultaneity is a direct consequence of special relativity.  It states that to one person that is still, two events can be seen as simultaneous, but to someone moving relative to you, those same two events are observed to have occurred at different times.  Can they both be right?  Yes.  Both viewpoints are correct.  To the stationary person, the events were simultaneous, and to the moving person, they were not.  There is no absolute here, and the same is true about religion.

No one religion is more correct than any other.  There, I said it.  Someone has to.  Person A says that their invisible creator is responsible for their life.  Person B says that the creator is actually some other entity.  Person C says that in fact persons A and B are both wrong, as there are several creators.  Person D says you are all wrong, as the Universe can exist without any creator.  Special relativity argues that all religious beliefs are equally valid.  We all lead a specific life, which leads us to relatively different observations and points of view.  If you accept special relativity, then you must also accept that there can be more than one correct answer or solution to the origins of the Universe. 

Introductory Mathematics leads us to believe that if solution 1 ≠ solution 2, then both cannot be correct.  Yet, the math of special relativity is elegant, and says the opposite is true.  Why?  It is because both solutions correspond to two unique questions.  Religious leaders wish to generalize their respective faiths, as though they should apply verbatim to all others.  What these leaders fail to recognize is that the question for all of their followers is actually unique.  Our personal viewpoint is relative, and thus, so too is the question, “What is life?”  Clearly, the answer should vary from person to person.  If time passes at the same rate for two people, then they are not moving with respect to one another.  In life, we are all set in relative motion with respect to our views on life.  As such, our viewpoints are equally correct, and most importantly, not necessarily transferrable.

In science, we must agree to disagree sometimes.  Two different observations of the same event can be different and also valid if they come from separate perspectives; in fact, they must be.  When Einstein declared that both time and space are relative, the scientific community took some time to accept this possibility.  They eventually came around, and today, use the theory to ensure successful operation of GPS technology among others.  Indeed, the clocks onboard satellites, which move fast compared to the surface of the Earth, are adjusted to tick slightly faster.  It is the only way they can remain synchronised to our clocks on Earth.

The religious community is historically slower to adapt than the scientific community is.  It is not my intention to impact anyone’s religious views.  My hope is that there will come a time when no one tries to impose their religion onto someone else.  Special relativity proves that such efforts are fundamentally flawed.  Religious views should be based on observation and reason, not authority.  Somehow, religious leaders got this one ass backwards. 

You know how some people take offense when their religion is questioned or challenged?  That is how I feel when proven science is ignored.  Special relativity is a case where science encourages open-mindedness for all perspectives.  It offers validity to everyone’s impression.  The most progressive of religions ought to consider implementing George Carlin’s unwritten commandment into their list of life values: “Keep thy religion to thyself.”  I don’t mean that you shouldn’t share your views; I just mean that you must never enforce them.  The distinction between the two is responsible for the vast majority of the ugliness in the world.  I beg of you, that when you make a leap of faith, make one akin to Einstein’s.  Leap from a place of inquisitiveness, not authority.