Is Entropy dead?

@validity,

validity - I would like it to be crystal clear but I don't think it is possible. What you say is logically correct but each time we look at the universe it gets bigger and bigger and so much so that I wonder if there is any profit in settling an argument of whether it is closed or not, i.e. does a boundary or some limit to size have any meaning when the universe seems to be expanding at some colossal speed and ever more quickly?
There seems to be a lesson when dealing with waves that what are confused conditions to us may be perfectly sensible to waves - if you see what I mean.
This seems to be about as good as I can do by way of explanation (no home brew was involved over the festive season or consumed in the writing of this reply - maybe it was a mistake).

1 Reply

@Bracewell,

Bracewell wrote:

validity - I would like it to be crystal clear but I don't think it is possible. What you say is logically correct but each time we look at the universe it gets bigger and bigger and so much so that I wonder if there is any profit in settling an argument of whether it is closed or not, i.e. does a boundary or some limit to size have any meaning when the universe seems to be expanding at some colossal speed and ever more quickly?
There seems to be a lesson when dealing with waves that what are confused conditions to us may be perfectly sensible to waves - if you see what I mean.
This seems to be about as good as I can do by way of explanation (no home brew was involved over the festive season or consumed in the writing of this reply - maybe it was a mistake).

Consider this, if there is a bounday to consider then the universe can be considered closed, if there is no boundary the universe is ultimately isolated and thus closed.

If the universe was not a closed system they why do conservation laws hold?

0 Replies

@Bracewell,

What your looking for is the Graviton.
Just as validity mentions:

Quote:

If the graviton is discovered, the concept of space-time will still work, but will fail to be an accurate account of the underlying reality.

The Graviton, though physically improvable, if proven still allows the laws of thermodynamics to exist. All we have to do is change our view point on reality.

Singularity, or the pre-big bang condition, attracts and coheres energy, specifically the energy of protons, planets and stars and we call this attraction Gravity. Gravity is shrink energy and I suppose gravity can be seen as the force by which singularity returns from its big bang super-stretched extension to its pre-big bang condition.

Energy in the form of mass coheres by reason of its singularity. Energy, alone of its qualities, is measurable, but cohesion, is a non-energy quality, and thus not measurable. Singularity is omnipresent but, from a time-space viewpoint, it appears to be located at mass gravitational centers, or gravitons. As there is but one singularity - the absolute whole and infinite set, all apparently differentiated centers are one. Since gravity is a function of singularity, all gravitational centers are one. Gravitational centers are variously differentiated in time-space yes, but one in singularity. The force of gravity is transfinite, in that it is a phenomenon of time-space, while being also singular and infinite. Gravitational processes are transfinite processes.

So all finite matter is transfinitely centered on a universal black-hole singularity that we are unable to prove. This singularity is what attracts all matter and this attraction is called Gravity. What is singularity? Singularity, the precondition to the big bang, is a condition of zero time-space, which has no mass, and since black holes process mass to singularity the mass of a black hole does not pertain to its singularity but to the mass which it is processing to singularity. It is the mass-less singularity which attracts all mass. The gravitational force is a singularity force and every mass has a singularity center of gravity. Each atomic nucleus is centred on its singularity - the Graviton.

Quote:

Consider the singularity that is the source of the Big Bang. This object (if that is an acceptable word for it) must then be at absolute zero temperature (because there could be no electro/magnetic radiation). So, what should happen next?

Blogger is correct. At the start of the big bang, yes, the void was absolutely cold, and met the absolute heat from the big bang. This is what caused everything to split into positive and negative particles from that point on.

1 Reply

@l0ck,

I am afraid 10ck that much of what you say means about as much to me as words picked at random from a tombola drum. Please slow down.
Validity - what is the maximum speed of propogation for heat?

1 Reply

@Bracewell,

you cannot put Humpty Dumpty together again , without using energy to do it.

You cannot reverse entropy on the grand macro scale, it is just a fact a reality.

Alan

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

When you all term the universe as the "universe", are you differentiating it from the definition of the cosmos?

Also, what if the cosmos could not be considered to be a "system"?

Lets not take this out of proportion, but lets say the universe was made out of the same stuff. Then how are they interacting?

So we therefore assert that entropy is limited to reality which has limited perception, so the system in which entropy works is working only in a closed system, so obviously whatever influence this entropy characterization of the universe is is automatically stipulated there is a beyond which has not the entropy characteristic.

So perhaps it might be better to understand what entropy is of a system, is it an autopoetic process? Is enthalpy allopoetic? You know what... nevermind, this is obviously just dualistic nonsense I can sorta see.

1 Reply

@Bracewell,

Bracewell wrote:

Validity - what is the maximum speed of propogation for heat?

Technically it could not be greater than that of the speed of light, practically it is probably no where near this.

Why do you ask?

0 Replies

@Bracewell,

There is no "free lunch" someone, somehow, somewhen must pay for it, there is no way of getting around this fact

0 Replies

@Bracewell,

reversing entropy or stopping entropy are subjects for metaphysics or even esoteric thought. but I am not saying we cant venture into that, just making a comment

Alan

0 Replies

@Bracewell,

Kill entropy , and hey!! all our energy worries are resolved

Alan

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

When you all term the universe as the "universe", are you differentiating it from the definition of the cosmos?

So perhaps it might be better to understand what entropy is of a system, is it an autopoetic process? Is enthalpy allopoetic? You know what... nevermind, this is obviously just dualistic nonsense I can sorta see.

Holiday - Websters does not differentiate much between 'Cosmos' and 'Universe', that is, for the purposes of our discussion. However, the second quoted sentence is a 'beezer' that I could not decipher in Websters or in a technical dictionary - sorry.

Validity - Maybe I should have been more specific and said 'heating'. If the blogger is correct and we get a bit confused between particle ejection and electro/magnetic field heating, and the edge of the universe is expanding close to the speed of light, and you are correct about the speed of propagation of heat (heating) then maybe you can see my concern.

Alan - we are toasting comfortably in heat that seems to have originated from nothing and if you are correct will return to nothing. It seems that science is comfortable with heat appearing suddenly but finds the concept to be somewhat of an embarrassment when it is to be lost. However, if you turn a microwave off does the heating stop instantly?

1 Reply

@Bracewell,

Bracewell wrote:

Validity - Maybe I should have been more specific and said 'heating'. If the blogger is correct and we get a bit confused between particle ejection and electro/magnetic field heating, and the edge of the universe is expanding close to the speed of light, and you are correct about the speed of propagation of heat (heating) then maybe you can see my concern.

I apologise for I still can not understand your concern.

1 Reply

@validity,

Validity - if the boundary of the universe is moving faster than the radiation then is the radiation in effect inside a closed system? The argument seems to get a bit blurred if the true conditions are not really known.
When the rules of Entropy were formulated these weird conditions could not have been envisaged.

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;41192 wrote:

Kill entropy , and hey!! all our energy worries are resolved

I wouldn't think so since without entropy things would retain their mass, energy flow would stop, the universe would grow cold, and we'd be dead (of course, you might mean our worries are resolved because we won't be around to worry Smile

).

I agree with you however that there are no facts that encourage one to imagine entropy could end. I've heard ideas like that hoping the universe will at some point reverse itself, return to a singularity, and then kick off a new universe with another Big Bang.

1 Reply

@LWSleeth,

LWSsleeth,

Quote:

I agree with you however that there are no facts that encourage one to imagine entropy could end. I've heard ideas like that hoping the universe will at some point reverse itself, return to a singularity, and then kick off a new universe with another Big Bang.

Sorry a cyclic universe analogy could be a bouncing ball, first very high, then less until it stopped bouncing ball.

The universe might expand and contact into another singularity, each consecutive singularity is less dense and less energetic , just like the ball.

Entropy wins in the end as the final bounce of this type of universe does not have sufficient energy for another big bang so it simple vanished into the abyss forever

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;42563 wrote:

LWSsleeth,

Sorry a cyclic universe analogy could be a bouncing ball, first very high, then less until it stopped bouncing ball.

The universe might expand and contact into another singularity, each consecutive singularity is less dense and less energetic , just like the ball.

Entropy wins in the end as the final bounce of this type of universe does not have sufficient energy for another big bang so it simple vanished into the abyss forever

How can we assume the fluctuations of the creation of new universes will mimic how things behave in our unfolding universe? If we rely on the only evidence we have, there is no historical information that tells us some prior Big Bang was more powerful than ours (i.e., and so therefore each successive hypothetical BB will occur with less energy).

In fact, one might infer that since compression seems to have initiated our BB, and decompression (as in expansion and radiation) are what yield energy, that "energy" is merely the force of decompression. In that case, nothing whatsoever is lost in expansion, and so an equal re-compression fully recreates the energy situation of our universe.

Of course, these are all factless musings. A more profound question is what caused the compressional force behind the BB in the first place, and why it was that as the universe unfolded the miraculous organization found behind the evolution of life should have happened.

0 Replies

@Bracewell,

Our universe could possibly be the seed for a lesser universe.

I have often wondered how entropy works near a black hole. Normal entropy is always hot into cold, but a hot black hole can draw energy from the almost absolute zero of space.

So it seems a reverse of entropy cold into hot??

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

what work does energy do near a black hole anyways? I think entropy would just become undefined as it reaches a black hole, in the sense that where is there useful work to be done? At this momentum a black hole causes, can energy, not to mention the mass, allow for the system to do work that is outside of the function of entering the black hole?

And what of the nuclear properties of the matter, the matter looses its boundness, I can't see there being that order of the disorder we call the micro perception of particles. It would become order of the order of micro perception. I mean, what happens to the disorder in the micro perception near a black hole? There is no disorder, therefore no autopoeitic functioning to cause the macro order, which in turn, inhibits a relative defining of order. Thus entropy becomes undefined. The particles are uniform in that they behave like unbound energy, not of bound energy with an indifference to the environment sort-to-speak.

So with complete dependence on the enviroment, or nearly a complete, and work done is relative to the system(environment), there can be no disorder, yet one cannot say there is order, for there is hardly bound energy. There is this process of stretching bound energy until it is unbound I guess is a good way of phrasing it. The process is the only work beign acheived. However, this is not a thermal process (so where's the entropy coming from because we have emitted thermal radiation right?) , but rather a nuclear one. Once the process is done, then... ok nevermind, beyond me.

0 Replies

@Bracewell,

Holiday

Yes the classical universal constants begin to break down and alter around the region of a black hole and the illogical of quantum theory begins to take over.

Here our logic breaks down and the illogical happens

Much to be learned in this strange reality where time, matter, space merge back towards TOE

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Interesting... any thoughts as to why; any theories, any ideas?

0 Replies

Is Entropy dead?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know