Oscillating Unvierse Theory and the 2nd law of Thermodynamics

I have read two contraditory explanations of why the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would prohibit an oscillating universe ad infinitum.

The first one, from a Paul Davies Books states that the second law of thermodynamics only would permit the oscillations to become larger each time. While this would lead to an infinite future, it also points to a finite past.

Another explanation used a bouncing ball as an analogy and stated that the bounces would get smaller each time.

Which is correct?

Thanks,
Glenn
 PhysOrg.com astronomy news on PhysOrg.com >> NASA builds unusual testbed for analyzing X-ray navigation technologies>> Subaru Telescope observations and CoRoT mission unveil future of the Sun>> Galaxy's Ring of Fire
 I know that in Tolman's original oscillating universe, the cycles get longer and longer. It doesn't necessarily follow that the universe then gets bigger each cycle, but I wouldn't be surprised. I haven't read the papers, though, so I don't know. It's worth noting that Tolman's model was in the context of classical general relativity, and in quantum gravity, all bets are off; we can't extrapolate the effects of a collapse on a future expansion. It's also worth noting that people have worked on oscillating models that try to avoid the entropy problems of Tolman's, e.g.: http://arXiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9510041 http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0204479
 Recognitions: Gold Member Science Advisor I have heard a few different takes on this myself. However, it seems to me that the law of entropy cannot be applied to the Oscilating Universe model at all. I have two reasons for this opinion; 1)Entropy is the tendency of energy to distribute itself more and more evenly throughout the universe. This means that where there is more energy (in the form of a partical of matter, for example) that energy will tend to radiate away (through partical decay) and spread out into places where there is less. That is, places within the universe. But the energy cannot leave the universe, because that would constitute anihilation, which would violate conservation. By all the observational evidence we have, energy cannot be created or destroyed. So the same energy that went into this Big Bang will also be present in the next. 2) By all the Oscilating Universe models I have seen, the basic laws of physics are randomised at the moment of the Big Crunch. If this is true, then even if entropy did mean the whole system loses energy, it would only mean that for this current oscilation. In the previous oscilation, the law of entropy may not have existed, or it may have been the opposite of what it is now, or any number of possibilities. One geuss is as good as another, once you cross the singularity-boundary between cosmoses (cosmi?).

Oscillating Unvierse Theory and the 2nd law of Thermodynamics

 Originally posted by LURCH 1)Entropy is the tendency of energy to distribute itself more and more evenly throughout the universe.
That isn't the definition of entropy.

 By all the observational evidence we have, energy cannot be created or destroyed. So the same energy that went into this Big Bang will also be present in the next.
Conservation of energy doesn't say anything directly about what happens to the entropy.

 2) By all the Oscilating Universe models I have seen, the basic laws of physics are randomised at the moment of the Big Crunch.
The idea has been proposed, but I've never heard of any concrete oscillating universe model in which the laws of physics were actually different.

The kernel of truth in your argument is that we don't know what happens at a singularity, or whether there even is one
 Recognitions: Gold Member Science Advisor Staff Emeritus The 2nd law is a description of a phenomenon within this universe. I don't see how it can be applied to anything before or outside of this universe.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Originally posted by Ambitwistor Conservation of energy doesn't say anything directly about what happens to the entropy.
I think it does if we try to apply entropy to an entire cosmological model. If the system being studied is "the universe", then energy lost from that system is energy that ceases to exist within the universe. This amounts to the annihilation of the energy in question.

For energy to be lost from a particular system to the universe is one thing, but for energy to be lost from the universe, that energy ceases to exist. This violates conservation.

Recognitions:
 Originally posted by LURCH I think it does if we try to apply entropy to an entire cosmological model. If the system being studied is "the universe", then energy lost from that system is energy that ceases to exist within the universe. This amounts to the annihilation of the energy in question. For energy to be lost from a particular system to the universe is one thing, but for energy to be lost from the universe, that energy ceases to exist. This violates conservation.
Your second paragraph is dead-on. That is why Guth's "first" model failed and why there are currently about 23 different Inflation models, none successful yet, in my humble opinion.

Labguy
 LURCH, you said a lot about energy conservation, but what are you trying to say about entropy?

 Originally posted by Labguy Your second paragraph is dead-on. That is why Guth's "first" model failed [...]
Guth's original inflation model didn't fail because energy was not conserved, or was being "lost from the universe", or anything like that.

Recognitions:
 Originally posted by Ambitwistor Guth's original inflation model didn't fail because energy was not conserved, or was being "lost from the universe", or anything like that.
Ok, it failed for something(s) else..[8)] I used to know a lot about entropy, but that was back when my mind was in a more ordered state. It seems to be getting more and more random as time goes by... [t)]

Guylab

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Originally posted by Ambitwistor LURCH, you said a lot about energy conservation, but what are you trying to say about entropy?
That entropy involves the loss of energy from a system. If I understand you correctly, you're saying it doesn't? If entropy is not the redistribution of energy from places of higher concentration to places of lower concentration, then I've greatly missunderstood the whole concept. Can entropy take place without this movement of energy?

 Originally posted by LURCH That entropy involves the loss of energy from a system. If I understand you correctly, you're saying it doesn't?
The total energy of a closed system will remain constant, but its entropy will tend to increase.

 If entropy is not the redistribution of energy from places of higher concentration to places of lower concentration, then I've greatly missunderstood the whole concept. Can entropy take place without this movement of energy?
Entropy isn't something that "takes place". Do you mean, can entropy increase without movement of energy? Well, without local transport of energy from one part of a system to another, generally nothing happens: you have a static system. But I don't know what connection you want to make with entropy. I'm also not sure what you mean by "redistribution of energy from places of higher concentration to places of lower concentration". Do you mean that when a system equilibriates, it should end up with the same energy at all points of the system? If so, that's not the case.

well i would only say that,if everrything in this universe is happening on the basis of alll physical laws,then it would be an almost perpetual motion body revealing all its death and birth time dependently...does any meaning to the NEGENTROPY? if it is then it would be a mirror effect of either birth or of death..wanaa have something to say on this???

 Originally posted by Glenn I have read two contraditory explanations of why the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would prohibit an oscillating universe ad infinitum. The first one, from a Paul Davies Books states that the second law of thermodynamics only would permit the oscillations to become larger each time. While this would lead to an infinite future, it also points to a finite past. Another explanation used a bouncing ball as an analogy and stated that the bounces would get smaller each time. Which is correct? Thanks, Glenn
 Recognitions: Gold Member Science Advisor Staff Emeritus Entropy is a thermodynamic measurement of an isolated system. It is a measurement of the randomness, uncertainty, or disorder in that system. Energy is not lost as the system does what it does...the energy is converted to a less useful state. But overall energy is still conserved.
 Entropy (as it applies to physics); is the measure of the unavailability of a system’s (open OR closed) thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work. It can also be the measure of degradation or chaos of the Universe. Entropy (as it applies to maths); is the measure of the rate of transfer of information in a message. The classical laws of thermodynamics do not apply or work with all observable phenomena. They don’t. Eg. Hawking Radiation and Quantum Microstates (currently being discussed on another thread on this forum). It IS possible for energy to disappear from this Universe or to “cease to exist”. No replacement force is needed for the resultant loss of energy.

Recognitions:
Gold Member