Notices
Results 1 to 51 of 51
Like Tree24Likes
  • 2 Post By Daecon
  • 3 Post By exchemist
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By Zwolver
  • 2 Post By KALSTER
  • 1 Post By Zwolver
  • 1 Post By Daecon
  • 1 Post By Zwolver
  • 1 Post By KALSTER
  • 1 Post By Zwolver
  • 1 Post By KALSTER
  • 2 Post By PhDemon
  • 1 Post By Zwolver
  • 1 Post By G O R T
  • 1 Post By Zwolver
  • 1 Post By KJW
  • 1 Post By Zwolver
  • 1 Post By PinkBerry

Thread: Evolution v Entropy

  1. #1 Evolution v Entropy 
    Forum Senior samsmoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    304
    In what way does the increasing variety and complexity of the matter of which life is made exhibit a tendency to uniformity over time?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by samsmoot View Post
    In what way does the increasing variety and complexity of the matter of which life is made exhibit a tendency to uniformity over time?
    No.

    Entropy arguments with relation to evolution in general doesn't apply because the Earth has had a constant infusion of solar and geothermal energy for the past 4.5 billion years. It does come into play at the molecular level when following energy chains and conversions.


    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Senior samsmoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    304
    So would It be true to say that some matter does not tend to uniformity over time? Or just that we can't see It?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Senior samsmoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    304
    But this definition of entropy: 'the tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity' - I just don't see how life forms are complying with this law. If life matter has always evolved in a way that isn't uniform it isn't apparent. Life would have been quite uniform at the beginning (according to evolution), but over millions of years it has become less uniform. I get that energy will make stuff happen, but not how it causes the variety of life we see. I understand that a changing environment on earth would be conducive to different life forms being better or worse off depending on when and where they were, but I don't see how the world isn't filled with slightly varying single cell organisms or very simple multi-cellular organisms instead of millions of species each containing millions of cells. According to the law of entropy as defined above, the life matter we see has been getting more and more uniform as time has gone by. But it doesn't look like it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,524
    I don't think you understand what entropy is, or the difference between open and closed systems. Maybe this will help. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2knWCuzcdJo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by samsmoot View Post
    So would It be true to say that some matter does not tend to uniformity over time? Or just that we can't see It?
    Agree with Demon, you don't seem to know what entrophy is or when it applies.

    And you don't have to get as complex as life...... a lightning bolt, or Hurricane is about is well ordered as any energy possible can be on Earth. For a specific phenomena to become so well ordered, a lot more energy had to become more disordered...hence entropy increased, on average, across all the matter involved. Just about everything on Earth ultimately is reduced to quite low entropy in the form of infrared radiation (heat) escaping into space. This applies to you, me, the largest Typhoon, and the microbes living in your eyelids.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Senior samsmoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    I don't think you understand what entropy is, or the difference between open and closed systems. Maybe this will help. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2knWCuzcdJo
    Thanks for that - and the link. I will have a look at it. But in any case I think it's a simple question which I would have expected to find a fairly straightforward answer to. Either life matter exhibits entropy or it does not. If it doesn't, then why not? If it does, how so? I appreciate that a simple answer may not be possible but someone may have one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by samsmoot View Post
    But this definition of entropy: 'the tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity'
    Which it is. In comparison with the entirety of the universe, the fact that we don't obey a law (which technically doesn't even apply to us) is not only unsurprising, but not particularly interesting.

    This reminds me of people who confuse climate and weather. We can still have an overall trend with anomalies inside.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,524
    Look up the difference between closed and open systems in thermodynamics and do some research. It is simple if you understand this crucial difference.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,288
    *puts hand up*

    Ooh, ooh, I know!

    If entropy was real then a single Sperm and a single Ovum could never turn into a gigantic and complicated Human-shaped Human with trillions of cells that form dozens of completely different organs!

    Did I do it right?
    KALSTER and RedPanda like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Senior samsmoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by samsmoot View Post
    But this definition of entropy: 'the tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity'
    Which it is. In comparison with the entirety of the universe, the fact that we don't obey a law (which technically doesn't even apply to us) is not only unsurprising, but not particularly interesting.
    So are you saying that the matter of life does not obey the law of entropy? And it doesn't apply? If so that would seem a good standpoint to be coming from in order to pin it down some more. If we don't obey the law of entropy it is quite surprising to me - given the definition of the word.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Senior samsmoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Look up the difference between closed and open systems in thermodynamics and do some research. It is simple if you understand this crucial difference.
    Thank you - I will definitely look at this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by samsmoot View Post
    But this definition of entropy: 'the tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity' - I just don't see how life forms are complying with this law.
    just as an aside i see that you've underlined the word "evolve" as if it has a special meaning
    surely you're not implying that the "evolve" in your sense (i.e. change of a physical system from one state to another) is in any way the same as the evolution of organisms ?

    because if you do you're only going to confuse yourself by implying an identity that just isn't there
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    *puts hand up*

    Ooh, ooh, I know!

    If entropy was real then a single Sperm and a single Ovum could never turn into a gigantic and complicated Human-shaped Human with trillions of cells that form dozens of completely different organs!

    Did I do it right?
    NO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Senior samsmoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by samsmoot View Post
    But this definition of entropy: 'the tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity' - I just don't see how life forms are complying with this law.
    just as an aside i see that you've underlined the word "evolve" as if it has a special meaning
    surely you're not implying that the "evolve" in your sense (i.e. change of a physical system from one state to another) is in any way the same as the evolution of organisms ?

    because if you do you're only going to confuse yourself by implying an identity that just isn't there
    No, I am not equating the one meaning with the other - it's just the best definition which helps explain the argument. If there is one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,591
    Quote Originally Posted by samsmoot View Post
    In what way does the increasing variety and complexity of the matter of which life is made exhibit a tendency to uniformity over time?
    I see you've agreed to follow PhDemon's advice and check out the difference between closed and open systems, which I am sure will help you a lot.

    The thing is, there are a lot of very woolly formulations of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and of Entropy floating around. This notion that the 2nd Law implies everything exhibits a tendency to uniformity makes vague sense in a very general, hand-waving way , but is pretty useless to apply to specific thermodynamic changes. It is more useful to say something like dS =0 for any reversible change and dS >0 for any spontaneous change.

    The point, with evolution of life, is that the order that accumulates does so very slowly, over many generations of organisms. Whereas, during the lifetime of each generation, the organisms metabolise, increasing the entropy of their environment as they do so, and then the die, during which process the accumulated order in their bodies is lost. So, when you integrate order accumulated versus entropy increase during the life of any given generation of creatures, it is obvious that net entropy has increased. So evolution (occurring as it does very slowly indeed from one generation to another) does not for a moment imply any violation of the 2nd Law of TD.

    Thermodynamics does allow for local increase in order, in many scenarios. If it did not, it would not be possible for crystals to form. Whenever, say, water freezes to form ice, latent heat is given off that increases the entropy of the environment, by more than the local increase in order in the ice crystals.

    Exactly the same trade-off occurs with the order in a growing organism.
    KALSTER, RedPanda and samsmoot like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Senior samsmoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    304
    Thank you - I appreciate you taking the time to answer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Life fully obeys the Laws of Thermodynamics and thus is always impacted by entropy. To create the order of a living organism the total entropy increases. This is the simple answer to your question. Now all you have to do is understand it.

    Edit: I didn't realise that exchemist had posted a much clearer explanation. Use his.
    samsmoot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Senior samsmoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Life fully obeys the Laws of Thermodynamics and thus is always impacted by entropy. To create the order of a living organism the total entropy increases. This is the simple answer to your question. Now all you have to do is understand it.

    Edit: I didn't realise that exchemist had posted a much clearer explanation. Use his.
    I like your answer too - very concise and easily taken on board.

    BTW - really appreciate the efforts made to help me on this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Senior samsmoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    I don't think you understand what entropy is, or the difference between open and closed systems. Maybe this will help. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2knWCuzcdJo
    Thanks for that link - it did help a lot. And I see that my Q has been addressed before by others. Entropy does not increase in an open system, like the earth, I see, which is more than I knew before I started. Not sure if entropy decreases in an open system or not but that seems to be the case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by samsmoot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    I don't think you understand what entropy is, or the difference between open and closed systems. Maybe this will help. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2knWCuzcdJo
    Thanks for that link - it did help a lot. And I see that my Q has been addressed before by others. Entropy does not increase in an open system, like the earth, I see, which is more than I knew before I started. Not sure if entropy decreases in an open system or not but that seems to be the case.
    Seems you might still be missing something.

    In open systems, whether entrophy is increasing or decreasing depends on the input, output and internal energy processes within.

    More important to your OPs question, is even in a closed system, which means total entropy is increasing, there can be some matter within which becomes more ordered (at the expense of the rest). Life and most other interesting natural phenomena are examples of this--local concentrations of increasing order against a backdrop of decreasing order (increasing entropy).
    samsmoot likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,673
    I think this is weird to be in the biology section now.

    Entropy and thermodynamics sound more like physics or chemistry than biology. But anyway. I have always found it incomplete to think about enthropy as a ladder you can only climb up, and not down. Seems impossibly finite in my eyes. Yes, the entropy we observe only increases (in total), because this results in binding with less energy, which is preferred. And there is "loss" of energy from all transformations.

    But this means, either at the end (or beginning) entropy has to switch back somehow, or either the beginning never happened, or this is the last time the universe can exist in the cycle (which i think is correct to think of the big bang as a cycle).
    samsmoot likes this.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by samsmoot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    I don't think you understand what entropy is, or the difference between open and closed systems. Maybe this will help. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2knWCuzcdJo
    Thanks for that link - it did help a lot. And I see that my Q has been addressed before by others. Entropy does not increase in an open system, like the earth, I see, which is more than I knew before I started. Not sure if entropy decreases in an open system or not but that seems to be the case.
    Eventually the sun and all the stars will burn out, life will end and entropy will win. The end.
    RedPanda and samsmoot like this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,673
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Eventually the sun and all the stars will burn out, life will end and entropy will win. The end.
    Exactly, this is impossible if you take in mind that the universe actually begun at one point..
    samsmoot likes this.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,288
    Humanity only has a few million years to figure out interstellar space travel and begin a journey to another habitable planet to live on for howevermany millions of years before *that* star expires, too... and then begin another journey to another planet...
    samsmoot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Eventually the sun and all the stars will burn out, life will end and entropy will win. The end.
    Exactly, this is impossible if you take in mind that the universe actually begun at one point..
    Our universe began at a point, but we don't know where that "point" came from, nor what or even if something happened before the "bang". We know though that at that instant, the universe was at minimum entropy and all indications are that expansion will continue forever, meaning the universe will reach a state of maximum entropy, or the so called "heat death".
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,673
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Eventually the sun and all the stars will burn out, life will end and entropy will win. The end.
    Exactly, this is impossible if you take in mind that the universe actually begun at one point..
    Our universe began at a point, but we don't know where that "point" came from, nor what or even if something happened before the "bang". We know though that at that instant, the universe was at minimum entropy and all indications are that expansion will continue forever, meaning the universe will reach a state of maximum entropy, or the so called "heat death".
    I find that thought lacking foresee-ability. If what you say is correct, then I immediately believe that a god created the universe.. Because then there would be no other solution to this. So either, you believe god created the universe yourself, or you don't understand the implications of what you are suggesting.

    If the universe ceases to exist, even for a second, then it's gone forever. Maximum entropy means gone, in my eyes. And if this is the end point, in the universal scale and the probable much higher age of the universe than just this once, it means that we don't exist. I see the universe as a mobius loop. No matter how far we go, eventually we will be exactly where we started. I know, in entropy you are entirely correct. But overall you can't be correct. I just can't believe that this is a one way street. It would not be intrinsic enough.
    samsmoot likes this.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Eventually the sun and all the stars will burn out, life will end and entropy will win. The end.
    Exactly, this is impossible if you take in mind that the universe actually begun at one point..
    Our universe began at a point, but we don't know where that "point" came from, nor what or even if something happened before the "bang". We know though that at that instant, the universe was at minimum entropy and all indications are that expansion will continue forever, meaning the universe will reach a state of maximum entropy, or the so called "heat death".
    I find that thought lacking foresee-ability. If what you say is correct, then I immediately believe that a god created the universe.. Because then there would be no other solution to this. So either, you believe god created the universe yourself, or you don't understand the implications of what you are suggesting.
    One of the first things we have to do when we think about and do science, is to forget about any sensibilities we might have, because all it does is muddle the process. Nature has no obligation to satisfy our sensibilities.

    The basic points of the issue is that it looks now like there was a big bang, that expansion will continue forever and that entropy will increase towards a maximum level.

    If the universe ceases to exist, even for a second, then it's gone forever. Maximum entropy means gone, in my eyes. And if this is the end point, in the universal scale and the probable much higher age of the universe than just this once, it means that we don't exist. I see the universe as a mobius loop. No matter how far we go, eventually we will be exactly where we started. I know, in entropy you are entirely correct. But overall you can't be correct. I just can't believe that this is a one way street. It would not be intrinsic enough.
    We don't know what or even if anything happened before the big bang. There are working hypothesises that there might be a multiverse, where every permutation of a universe exists. That is, that our universe is one bubble in the vast ocean of the multiverse. If that were true, then us having the right recipe for life is not that mysterious any more.

    But even if some of this were true, we still have the problem of an expanding universe. The galaxies at the furthest point we can see are receding at an apparent speed approaching the speed of light and those beyond this horizon have speeds exceeding it. That means that we will never see anything more than what we see now, no matter how close to the speed of light we are able to travel. In fact, as the universe expands, we will see galaxies disappear from our view as their apparent velocities exceed the speed of light. And just like a bucket with a hole in the bottom, eventually all the usable energy in the observable universe will be depleted. There might be a vast or even infinite multiverse out there, but from what we understand now, we will never be able to interact with it anyway.

    Those are the cold hard facts as it stands now. And whichever alternative might be true, I don't see where a god would be needed. Feeling uncomfortable with the implications of this does not elevate the likelihood of the existence of a god one iota as far as I am concerned and if you value the scientific method, neither should it for you. If you had alternative ideas about the nature of the cosmos, then you would need much more than simply feeling uncomfortable with the current picture for it to have a scientific rigour.

    I personally feel somewhat confidant that we might be part of a mutiverse and that we might one day even find a way to move around in it, if we survive that long and maybe even be able to create our own universes, but these only have aesthetic appeal and little more and I understand that fully.
    samsmoot likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,673
    Well, can you explain how entropy was extremely low to begin with, to make the big bang possible. I can think of some things, like anti-time, or reversal effects when we achieve sub-sub-sub-atomic particle size as a result of our decaying proton/neutron's. But the loop, where the universe isn't expanding, just us getting smaller in comparison. As the universe does not have any size.. I can't compare it to anything..
    samsmoot likes this.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Senior samsmoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    304
    Have not abandoned thread - just busy. Thanks for the interesting reading.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Well, can you explain how entropy was extremely low to begin with, to make the big bang possible.
    Apparently the addition of gravity to the hot and dense conditions in the very early universe equates to a very low entropy state. I am currently looking for a good enough reference for this. It is mentioned in the Wiki article on the arrow of time, but it doesn't have any citations.

    I can think of some things, like anti-time, or reversal effects when we achieve sub-sub-sub-atomic particle size as a result of our decaying proton/neutron's. But the loop, where the universe isn't expanding, just us getting smaller in comparison. As the universe does not have any size.. I can't compare it to anything..
    I don't think much (or any) of this enjoys any serious contemplation by cosmologists.

    Again, there are inherent dangers in letting our sensibilities interfere with science. Science should be about looking for knowledge, not assuming a bit of "knowledge" that makes you feel comfortable and then looking for something to support it and dismissing other alternatives out of hand without evidence.
    samsmoot likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,673
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Well, can you explain how entropy was extremely low to begin with, to make the big bang possible.
    Apparently the addition of gravity to the hot and dense conditions in the very early universe equates to a very low entropy state. I am currently looking for a good enough reference for this. It is mentioned in the Wiki article on the arrow of time, but it doesn't have any citations.

    I can think of some things, like anti-time, or reversal effects when we achieve sub-sub-sub-atomic particle size as a result of our decaying proton/neutron's. But the loop, where the universe isn't expanding, just us getting smaller in comparison. As the universe does not have any size.. I can't compare it to anything..
    I don't think much (or any) of this enjoys any serious contemplation by cosmologists.

    Again, there are inherent dangers in letting our sensibilities interfere with science. Science should be about looking for knowledge, not assuming a bit of "knowledge" that makes you feel comfortable and then looking for something to support it and dismissing other alternatives out of hand without evidence.
    It's what scientists do. They come up with a research proposal, and then they test if it fits. Then it either fits, or it doesn't. Then the next proposal/theory. No scientist has the luxury to change their proposal after they have received budget to start researching. They have to stick with it, or change the proposal in agreement with the contractor, but then you lose credibility.

    And as far as what i stated above goes, i found neither support, or contrast to my claim (actually an idea/theory)
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    It's what scientists do. They come up with a research proposal, and then they test if it fits. Then it either fits, or it doesn't. Then the next proposal/theory. No scientist has the luxury to change their proposal after they have received budget to start researching. They have to stick with it, or change the proposal in agreement with the contractor, but then you lose credibility
    In my experience of research this is not always true. I've seen (and been involved with some) long term projects where after the initial phase it has become apparent that the direction of work needed to be changed. It was changed, quickly, yes we had to OK it with the funding body but the amount of paperwork was not too onerous, we got a lot more publications than we would have done if we stuck to the original proposal, there were no complaints and no loss of credibility. We did a lot more good science for the money than we would have done sticking to the original plan, I guess it depends on the attitude of the funding body but my experience is that funders appreciate this and if the results you are getting justify a change in research direction they are flexible, they would rather you changed what you were doing and got some "deliverables" (hate those buzzwords) than stick with the plan and achieve little.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,673
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    It's what scientists do. They come up with a research proposal, and then they test if it fits. Then it either fits, or it doesn't. Then the next proposal/theory. No scientist has the luxury to change their proposal after they have received budget to start researching. They have to stick with it, or change the proposal in agreement with the contractor, but then you lose credibility
    In my experience of research this is not always true. I've seen (and been involved with some) long term projects where after the initial phase it has become apparent that the direction of work needed to be changed. It was changed, quickly, yes we had to OK it with the funding body but the amount of paperwork was not too onerous, we got a lot more publications than we would have done if we stuck to the original proposal, there were no complaints and no loss of credibility. We did a lot more good science for the money than we would have done sticking to the original plan, I guess it depends on the attitude of the funding body but my experience is that funders appreciate this and if the results you are getting justify a change in research direction they are flexible, they would rather you changed what you were doing and got some "deliverables" (hate those buzzwords) than stick with the plan and achieve little.
    This is dubious for starting scientists. They need to create a name for themselves, and changing a proposal just shows how little they actually knew about a subject before starting their research.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,524
    You could be right but to my mind the whole point of research is you don't know the answer before you start. If your hypothesis (that was valid and important enough to be funded in the shark pool that is competiton for funds) is shown to be dead in the water early in the project, which you couldn't foresee as no matter how much preparation you've done or knowledge you have, you didn't have the funds to test it, what is the point of carrying on without changing the proposal? Most funders that I've dealt with appreciate this. I see what you are saying that this may reflect badly on the scientist but in the projects I'm familiar with this certainly was not the case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,673
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    You could be right but to my mind the whole point of research is you don't know the answer before you start. If your hypothesis (that was valid and important enough to be funded in the shark pool that is competiton for funds) is shown to be dead in the water early in the project, which you couldn't foresee as no matter how much preparation you've done or knowledge you have, you didn't have the funds to test it, what is the point of carrying on without changing the proposal? Most funders that I've dealt with appreciate this. I see what you are saying that this may reflect badly on the scientist but in the projects I'm familiar with this certainly was not the case.
    Most science i have been involved with were people, looking for their predictions. You wouldn't start doing any research before you already know all the possibilities. Usually there are 3 possibilities to any project.
    1 - The initial prediction was correct
    2 - The initial prediction was incorrect
    3 - The method of testing was inconclusive

    I prefer the third outcome. Because this keeps the work on the table, hopefully still interest there, and you can change your method and try again. Most progress will be made by people who don't know everything about their subject. One who knows everything about it, won't try to vary between things he knows, and will get stuck. I once created a biopolymer by accidentally ionically acidifying a colony of bacteria. The slime around the Proteus species solidified. No uses for it yet, but it was unexpected.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,524
    That's probably the difference, the projects I'm referring to are more like "it has been suggested based on models x is a key atmospheric process/reaction but we have no real clue about whether it actually occurs, what the products are or what the mechanism is, we need to sort it out". If the answer to the first part is "no" (which can take a significant amount of work to find out) we sometimes change the direction of research to something that has a "yes" answer to keep the research atmospherically relevant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,673
    What type of research are you preforming right now?
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Senior samsmoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Well, can you explain how entropy was extremely low to begin with, to make the big bang possible.
    Apparently the addition of gravity to the hot and dense conditions in the very early universe equates to a very low entropy state. I am currently looking for a good enough reference for this. It is mentioned in the Wiki article on the arrow of time, but it doesn't have any citations.
    Zwolver, that is a very interesting an pertinent question which deserves some consideration. KALSTER, some very well thought out replies which I also need to take on board. Thanks both for these thought provoking posts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,524
    @zwolver what I'm doing now isn't externally funded (my comments earlier were based on my previous jobs) in my current role the boss had money available to pay me to play (when he got his chair the university gave hime some no questions asked money, the only criteria were "use it to expand your research group", he employed me to help) but I'm looking at the hygroscopic growth, evaporation and liquid-liquid phase separation in aerosol particles with compositions that are relevant for atmospheric chemistry. A lot of hard core thermodynamics...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by samsmoot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Well, can you explain how entropy was extremely low to begin with, to make the big bang possible.
    Apparently the addition of gravity to the hot and dense conditions in the very early universe equates to a very low entropy state. I am currently looking for a good enough reference for this. It is mentioned in the Wiki article on the arrow of time, but it doesn't have any citations.
    Zwolver, that is a very interesting an pertinent question which deserves some consideration. KALSTER, some very well thought out replies which I also need to take on board. Thanks both for these thought provoking posts.
    Entropy, as concerns thermodynamics, is an obvious property of our universe.

    What makes you think that it can be applied beyond that scope, either outside or before and after?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Senior samsmoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by G O R T View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by samsmoot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Well, can you explain how entropy was extremely low to begin with, to make the big bang possible.
    Apparently the addition of gravity to the hot and dense conditions in the very early universe equates to a very low entropy state. I am currently looking for a good enough reference for this. It is mentioned in the Wiki article on the arrow of time, but it doesn't have any citations.
    Zwolver, that is a very interesting an pertinent question which deserves some consideration. KALSTER, some very well thought out replies which I also need to take on board. Thanks both for these thought provoking posts.
    Entropy, as concerns thermodynamics, is an obvious property of our universe.

    What makes you think that it can be applied beyond that scope, either outside or before and after?
    What makes you think I think that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,673
    Entropy is way more than just thermodynamics, but yes, it is obvious.

    ΔSsurroundings = ? dS surroundings = ? (Δq surroundings / T surroundings)

    In which ?q is the element of heat and T is temperature (in K). From the conservation of energy, q surroundings and q system are related:
    q surroundings = - q system

    while thermodynamics is dependent on specific properties of certain elements (density, size, transfer speed), entropy is not.



    Where k is the thermal conductivity of the material,
    A is the cross sectional area,
    THot is the higher temperature,
    TCold is the cooler temperature,
    t is the time taken,
    d is the thickness of the material.

    * Must note that i'm not a mathematician or physicist, so i might have taken the wrong examples..
    samsmoot likes this.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by samsmoot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by G O R T View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by samsmoot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Well, can you explain how entropy was extremely low to begin with, to make the big bang possible.
    Apparently the addition of gravity to the hot and dense conditions in the very early universe equates to a very low entropy state. I am currently looking for a good enough reference for this. It is mentioned in the Wiki article on the arrow of time, but it doesn't have any citations.
    Zwolver, that is a very interesting an pertinent question which deserves some consideration. KALSTER, some very well thought out replies which I also need to take on board. Thanks both for these thought provoking posts.
    Entropy, as concerns thermodynamics, is an obvious property of our universe.

    What makes you think that it can be applied beyond that scope, either outside or before and after?
    What makes you think I think that?
    What made the big bang possible is before/outside of our universe. Interesting certainly, but pertinent, no.
    Expansion itself would seem to be at the root of entropy. The continued creation of space-time gives energy somewhere to go and inequities of time to get there.
    samsmoot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,673
    However, according to some here on this forum (correct me if i'm wrong), the law of the conservation of momentum in deep space is null, that means that things will stop moving, when nothing is between them and give into gravimetric forces.

    That means, something has to be pushing it continuously. Also, it expands at a speed now that is greater than the speed of light, which in terms of energy, with the use of just this dimension, is impossible. Thus it can't be just entropy that's responsible for the expansion of the universe, other forces must be involved.

    * I based this conclusion on data i got from people posting on this forum
    samsmoot likes this.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,633
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    the universe isn't expanding, just us getting smaller in comparison
    Strictly speaking, the statement that the universe is expanding means that the distances between cosmological objects are increasing relative to our standard ruler. Thus, your statement is equivalent and it makes no sense to regard it as being different. However, our standard ruler is a manifestation of the laws of physics and therefore the assumed constancy of the laws of physics implies that we best regard the standard ruler as constant. The important point is that because a measurement is relative to a standard, we are free to assume that the standard is constant (though we still need to be careful about our choice of standard).
    samsmoot likes this.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,673
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    the universe isn't expanding, just us getting smaller in comparison
    Strictly speaking, the statement that the universe is expanding means that the distances between cosmological objects are increasing relative to our standard ruler. Thus, your statement is equivalent and it makes no sense to regard it as being different. However, our standard ruler is a manifestation of the laws of physics and therefore the assumed constancy of the laws of physics implies that we best regard the standard ruler as constant. The important point is that because a measurement is relative to a standard, we are free to assume that the standard is constant (though we still need to be careful about our choice of standard).
    I know, but i was making the point that it doesn't matter this way. Our perception is expansion, but this doesn't have to be this way.. No way of telling if this is true though..
    samsmoot likes this.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    However, according to some here on this forum (correct me if i'm wrong), the law of the conservation of momentum in deep space is null, that means that things will stop moving, when nothing is between them and give into gravimetric forces.

    That means, something has to be pushing it continuously. Also, it expands at a speed now that is greater than the speed of light, which in terms of energy, with the use of just this dimension, is impossible. Thus it can't be just entropy that's responsible for the expansion of the universe, other forces must be involved.

    * I based this conclusion on data i got from people posting on this forum
    Please provide a link to the conservation of momentum being ever being null.

    Between two objects there is always something, even if that something is just the fabric of space itself.

    Pushing what???

    Just which dimension???

    Who ever said that entropy was responsible for inflation???

    I am not so certain that you understand inflation, your imprecise wording is keeping me guessing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,673
    Quote Originally Posted by G O R T View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    However, according to some here on this forum (correct me if i'm wrong), the law of the conservation of momentum in deep space is null, that means that things will stop moving, when nothing is between them and give into gravimetric forces.

    That means, something has to be pushing it continuously. Also, it expands at a speed now that is greater than the speed of light, which in terms of energy, with the use of just this dimension, is impossible. Thus it can't be just entropy that's responsible for the expansion of the universe, other forces must be involved.

    * I based this conclusion on data i got from people posting on this forum
    Please provide a link to the conservation of momentum being ever being null.

    Between two objects there is always something, even if that something is just the fabric of space itself.

    Pushing what???

    Just which dimension???

    Who ever said that entropy was responsible for inflation???

    I am not so certain that you understand inflation, your imprecise wording is keeping me guessing.
    Well.. i didn't agree on null conservation of momentum myself.. And i don't know where i got it from, but it somehow sticked.

    Inflation is compared to a balloon, we live on the surface, and as more air enters the balloon, points drift further apart. However, what is making space expand, because it seems like some external force is driving this.

    I can't understand how entropy could cause the universe to expand at speeds greater than light. To me that seems impossible.

    Pushing the edges of the universe, and the dimension was hypothetical. My knowledge is severely limited about these things..

    You are free to try to answer the questions yourself if you want to.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    4
    Entropy is only part of the equation. The other part of enthalpy. Only when you have the two can you predict whether a process will occur spontaneous or not. And given the huge influx of energy from the sun, there is nothing about life that violates anything, and certainly not a law of physics. *grumbles*
    samsmoot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,524
    True, but any enthalpy change drives an entropy change in the surroundings, ultimately it is all down to entropy...
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. entropy
    By the old man in forum Physics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 18th, 2011, 02:10 PM
  2. Entropy and evolution controversy
    By raimo lonka in forum Biology
    Replies: 282
    Last Post: July 2nd, 2010, 05:49 PM
  3. Invite - Evolution and Entropy
    By Golkarian in forum Physics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 19th, 2010, 09:19 PM
  4. Entropy
    By Zelos in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 13th, 2006, 02:30 AM
  5. Entropy
    By wallaby in forum Physics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 27th, 2005, 04:57 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •