| Thread Closed |
Disorder: Is it really increasing? |
Share Thread | Thread Tools |
| Apr12-10, 07:46 AM | #1 |
|
|
Disorder: Is it really increasing?
Scientists say disorder is increasing?
How come that we have well-orderd galaxies (from randomness) with the passage of time (many are in the process of evolution)? How come elememts have combined together to form cells and eventually living beings. How come humanbeings have started to live in an orderd state (cities, countries, etc.) from the disorderd/less ordered state of hunters? |
| Apr12-10, 08:18 AM | #2 |
|
Recognitions:
|
The first statement seems incorrect ... galaxies did not form out of randomness. They formed from clouds of interstellar atoms and molecules which represented a system with higher potential energy than a galaxy. The process of galaxy formation releases some of this energy back into the surrounding universe in such a way that the overall entropy is increased. The second two statements reflect processes which required the input of significant amounts of energy, all of which ultimately derived from our sun. The nuclear processes that cause the sun to emit energy also increase its entropy, so that the net entropy changes of the universe from these processes are positive. I realize that these answers may seem a bit solipsistic if you don't have a background in thermodynamics, so I will be happy to clarify as best I can if you have specific questions. |
| Apr12-10, 08:35 AM | #3 |
|
|
2. Suppose, the entropy of the universe becomes maximum. I think that would be the state of the bigbang or just after it. So, if entropy was already maximum, why it decreased to increase again. |
| Apr12-10, 09:14 AM | #4 |
|
|
Disorder: Is it really increasing?In order to use thermodynamics for galaxy or biology you need to indentify a correct notion of entropy which is basically based on [itex]S=\ln\Omega[/itex]. This won't be what you think is disorder. The point is that high entropy is something completely different from what you think when it comes to more complex system rather than bouncing molecules. So thermodynamics doesn't apply the way you might think. Look at the list http://www.math.utk.edu/~vasili/refs...hallenges.html There is a reason why there are so many problems which related to thermodynamics like problem, but can't be solved with it. It's just not useable there. In my view SpectraCat has a too much specialized picture of thermodynamics, but I'm not in the mood to explain to him again. So I advice you to think about what [itex]S=\ln\Omega[/itex] means and how the second law derives from it. I've had a discussion with someone recently and I can post the results in a moment. Don't trust SpectraCat or even me. Make up your own thoughts! |
| Apr12-10, 09:23 AM | #5 |
|
|
|
| Apr12-10, 10:57 AM | #6 |
|
|
|
| Apr12-10, 03:55 PM | #7 |
|
|
Yeah the entire universe is a closed system, whereas earth is not, so entropy in our planet can increase and decrease as well. Though, when I think about it, both the lowest state of entropy and the highest state of entropy of the universe have some similarities.
|
| Apr12-10, 04:03 PM | #8 |
|
|
The lowest entropic state is just after the BB, the highest is when all matter and energy (including heat) are distributed uniformly across the universe. |
| Apr12-10, 04:38 PM | #9 |
|
Recognitions:
|
Of course this isn't proof as DaveC points out, but should be sufficient to convince you that the 2nd law is physically manifest. |
| Apr12-10, 07:37 PM | #10 |
|
|
Also you know the microscopic physics behind gases. So you cannot make a second law on top of it and claim both never fail. You better proof consistency between these two laws. It's not hard, but only the people who know how to do it, can judge better what entropy means. |
| Apr12-10, 08:02 PM | #11 |
|
|
In the history of scientific study, the law has always held. That is as close as you're going to get to proof. |
| Apr12-10, 09:55 PM | #12 |
|
Recognitions:
|
Calculating the entropy of a self-gravitating dust cloud may be more interesting than it first seems, I didn't find a clear reference: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1981SvA....25..127D http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...234796efadde6f Does anyone have a good reference? Edit: section 2.2 of this has some references- http://kipac-prod.stanford.edu/colla...laxy-formation |
| Apr13-10, 03:53 AM | #13 |
|
|
|
| Apr13-10, 06:45 AM | #14 |
|
|
|
| Apr13-10, 06:48 AM | #15 |
|
|
|
| Apr13-10, 06:55 AM | #16 |
|
Recognitions:
|
|
| Thread Closed |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads for: Disorder: Is it really increasing?
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| Order from disorder | General Math | 13 | ||
| never liked working with other people | General Discussion | 7 | ||
| Order and Disorder | General Discussion | 6 | ||
| Entropy (disorder) | Introductory Physics Homework | 6 | ||
| The measure of Disorder? | General Physics | 3 | ||