Entropy
 

I had a thought just then. It started with the principle of entropy.

Entropy is the pull of all matter to a neutral element (the average element of all matter). In this state, there would be no energy moving around, because it's all in use being inert.

If the universe's average element is radioactive, it will break down to a lower element (as radioactive elements do, because they're higher, and more unstable).

Now, here comes my first question:
Will the average of all subatomic particles be a single element, or more than one element?

Next question:
If it all breaks down to the simplest few elements like hydrogen, will it then be a possible star-nursery?

Third question:
If so, then surely that means that energy is not removable, because with the birth of new stars, comes the birth of planets as they start to generate new elements?

I don't know what time period you are talking about - but ultimately, there won't be even hydrogen as protons are not stable themselves - yet their half-life is large, about 10^100 s.

But even sooner, the Universe's star nurseries will be depleted in several life-spans of stars - say a hundred billion years.

As I understand it, entropy is a measure of a systems order or disorder. The various "laws of entropy" deal with the tendancy for systmes to go from a state of high order, to a state of low order. (A clean room gets dirty... for an analogy.)

There are, however, notable exceptions. Every single living organism is a good example. All living things fail to go strictly from a system of high order to a system of low order. You may argue that all living things grow old, and die... thus returning to disorder... but all living things (that aren't extinct) also have a way of renewing themselves. People give birth to children, for instance, who rise from a relatively low level of organization to a very high level of organization.

There are also many such systems that are non-organic. One example: an eddy in a river, is something that has a higher level of order than the surrounding river, and does not obey the "law of entropy" by returning to a lower level of order (or energy).

Because of these "unusual" systems that defy the law of entropy, I don't see that it is necessary for things to "run down entirely" at all. And I certainly don't see all elements as moving steadily towards a "neutral" element.

Neither, as I said. There is a general tendency for things to seek out a "lowest" denominator. But there is also a tendency for the occasional catalyst to spark a revolution of order and energy.

You might wish to do a search on the topic "Complexity Theory" or "Web of Life" for more information about this sort of thing.

I'm not sure what you're really asking here.

Energy can not be created or destoryed. It simply takes a new form. This is why entropy can't be the only action at work. Otherwise, energy would be continually diminishing... and this is apparently not the case.
Thus, despite the general trend towards "lower levels", there has to be something that returns things to a "high level". And this is not the Big Bang... it is something that is happening all the time around us.

Actually, the second law of thermodynamics just says that the amount of usable energy in the universe is continually decreasing. The overall potential energy of the universe (largely as stored in chemical bonds - hence the complexity) is giving way to increased kinetic energy, which is less useful, especially as heat. That tendency most often manifests itself as a higher state of disorder (as moving, hot objects are less orderly than stable, cool objects), but that needn't be the case. A good example is with exergonic reactions in a living system, take the catabolic processes in a mitochondrion. Because the activation energy for these reactions is very low, they usually occur spontaneously, and result in the formation of simpler molecules and the release of energy. Because of the stepwise reaction mechanisms, most of the energy is harnessed and stored in ATP, but some of it is lost to heat. This is the way that warm-blooded creatures maintain their body temperature. The resulting smaller molecules that are formed from the breakdown of large polymers (usually carbohydrates) gives the system more entropy, although it really isn't any less orderly.

An important thing to remember is that living organisms are open systems. Although a growing child may seem to defy the second law, he is in fact releasing so much heat into the atmosphere as he grows that the overall entropy of the planet earth (which is, for all practical purposes, a closed system), is increasing.

Same thing here. The eddy organizes into complexity at the expense of the rest of the river. The second law only holds for closed systems. An eddy is not closed.

As Jarous pointed out, the proton will eventually decay, as will other non-fundemental particles, although it will take a tremendously long time for this to happen. If the universe has critical mass, the big crunch will occur first.

Keep in mind that one of the forms energy can take is mass (E=mc^2).

Actually, entropy is what causes living complexity, as strange as that may sound. It is the ability of living organisms to harness the energy released in exergonic, spontaneous reactions (which would not occur if not for the second law) and use it to catalyze endergonic, anabolic processes that makes life possible.

Neither do I - a long long time.

That's my point - this depletion of star-nurseries should inevitably lead to a recreation of star nurseries.

But chaos leads to order anyway.

That's why the devolution of matter to a base average would lead to the creation of new star-nurseries. I said that.

Only if the universe is a closed system, which it's not because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Likewise, that would mean the universe has a finite space, which could mean that all things redshifted aren't actually moving of themselves, but that space itself is getting larger, and taking those stars with it.

The universal move away from the 'centre' is getting faster, not slower. There will be no big crunch, according to current astronomical information.

What do the uncertainty relations have to do with whether or not the universe is a closed system? As Dp -> 0, Dq -> infinity. So what? This just says that the more precision with which we measure the momentum of a subatomic particle, the less precision we have in the measurement of its position.

The unboundedness of space has nothing to do with this. The only way our universe is not a closed system is if it interacts with other universes that we cannot see. Even if this is the case, the totality of all universes would constitute a closed system.

This all depends, and you know it. If the universe has a certain critical mass (which it does if dark matter hypotheses are correct) it will eventually slow down and collapse back in on itself. If it does not, then it will expand forever. You cannot say there will not be a big crunch any more than I can say that there will be. As of right now, no one knows.

Anyway, I just wanted to clear up the misconceptions about living systems and entropy. Entropy is the measure of how much usable energy is contained in a closed system. The more usable energy, the less entropy. The equation is simple. Let G = the amount of usable energy in a system (called free energy), let H = the total energy contained in the system, let T equal the temperature of the system, and let S = the entropy of the system. Then G = H - TS.

I meant the tendency of the universe to create protons and negatrons (antiprotons), and electrons and positrons (antielectrons) from nowhere, and for them to destroy themselves in a matter-antimatter reaction.

Infinite space means it can't be a closed system - a closed system has defineable boundaries.

But darkmatter is just a kludge to explain why reality doesn't fit the theory.
http://www.economist.com/science/dis...ory_id=2404626

Some of you may find this useful: Entropy

I don't think the two are even remotely related.

Closed space is not infinite - nor has it any definable boundaries. Boundaries between what? They can't be "defined" as there's no space-time outside.

Well, the fact that the universe is supposedly decreasing in energy, and yet is producing radiation from matter-antimatter reactions all the time does seem kind of related to me.

Good questions. If you look at closed systems, even they aren't truly 'closed systems'. Take a circuit running on a battery - closed system? Nay I say! Electrical energy gets transfered into heat energy in the wires (due to resistance etc), and that energy radiates out. The battery loses power, the system closes - entropy, yes? Nay and nay again! The energy from the heat is radiated out elsewhere, so that surrounding the 'closed system' increases in energy.

I have other examples, but I can't be bothered to wack you over the head with them, and that's really not my intention.

Edit:
Actually, I think I might take something from your link:
If we take this as a matter equation, then I don't think it's very disordered at all - you just no longer have white and black matter - you have grey matter, that is, the average matter between them as they increase in disorder - chaos begetting order.

The Universe is decreasing in energy? So the conservation laws do not hold anymore? C'mon, have you anything to back up that claim?

You just twist the definition of order and chaos. When there's no underlaying pattern to the marbles we say that they are placed randomly - arbitrarily - thus chaos. And if you look at combinatorics and probability theory, it is obvious that order is very improbable - and unless a lot of energy is spent any given system will increase in entropy.

I suspect the Electric Universe Theory would have something significant to say about whether or not the earth (and the whole universe for that mater) is a closed system or not.

I've tried to find some good links on this, but my "new paradigm" folder is missing from my favorites so I wasn't able to. Bummer!

Anyway, according to the electrical universe theory, the sun is basically a huge globe of ball lightening. (Note: gravity itself is created by electrical effects in this theory.) Since electrical phenomena has tremendous scalability the galaxies are also governed by electrical principles. In the case of each astronomical entity, what we have is somewhat analogous to an electrical motor, or more accurately a plasma focus devive. (I think that's the right name.)

The sun is the center of this focus device, and the planets are sort of like the electrical wires moving through a mangnetic field--generating electrical current, which is released at the sun.

The sun in turn is an element in the larger structure which is the galaxy, which is an element in... etc. etc.

Similarly, the earth itself is a generator, which is why the magnetosphere around the earth exist.

Interestingly, I've seen some evidence that strongly suggests that the earth is not the closed system that everyone thinks. Photographs (etc.) have captured electrical discharges that are many times higher above the earth than it was believed electrical discharges could go.

According to the theory, this is literally caused when the earth passes through areas of space that have different charge levels. The lightening is natures attempt to even out the charge differential between the earth and the surrounding space. But since the earth is in motion, (as is the solar system, and the galaxy, etc) this balancing can never be complete.

Also noteworthy is the fact that the charge around the earth is constantly being built up as the earth passes through the plasma structure of space.

Now... this is obviously not a mainstream theory, but it does demonstrate that it is not a "fact" that the earth is a closed system. And if it is not, then doesn't that invalidate all your objections that are based on the idea that it is?

Meteors make the earth an open system. End of story.

That's one of my points - the universe is not decreasing in energy, and therefore, can't be a closed system.

Given the chaotic marble scenario, the chaotic mixing of marbles will eventually (given enough time, depending on how long it takes for marbles to rearrange) equal out to an overall 'gray'. Order arising from chaos.

:D Good call.

The sun makes earth an open system - continuous input of energy!

Not at all - I'm not talking earth alone, I'm talking the universe.

Woah.

Iron is the element which you seek, Kolriss. It is the most stable element radioactively speaking, and that to which all other elements will inevitably fuse or fission to given the opportunity.

The energy of the universe is and always will be zero.

Energy (per se) is not conserved in matter-energy transactions, though matter/energy is.

The universe is closed.

Closed systems do not decrease in energy. The second law states that usable energy decreases - much different. What is your argument here?

Which is why disorder serves as a bad definition of entropy. Complexity, for one, is decreased in such a homogeneous system, as is usable energy.

Ha ha! I completely overlooked that.