Is Entropy the Key to Understanding the Big Bang and the Fate of the Universe?

In summary, the universe began with a low entropy state and has been progressing towards a higher entropy state.
  • #1
C_Nordquist
2
0
I am a software trainer and know about as much Physics as I've been able to pick up from the BBC‘s occasional documentaries.
I have never even taken a physics course in high school or college so I am an absolute lay-person here with what’s probably a very lay-person question…

I was watching the Wonders of the Universe with Brian Cox documentary, and he was talking about entropy and about how “high entropy” is a way of describing a disordered arrangement of materials. Like low entropy would be a sandcastle and high entropy would be all of that sand having been scattered across the beach by wind and waves… do I have that basically right?

And he was describing something about the tendency of low entropy to high indicates the arrow of time, and the breakdown of all materials, whether it be a derelict building or a star slowly burning out. Still on point here?

And I was wondering about the universe itself- and our model of Big Bang, to what we have now, to eventual big freeze….

And then I confused myself because the period after the big bang, where energy is supposedly swirling and coalescing, seems like a high entropy state… then moving into a low entropy state through the forces of gravity (?) bringing materials together and ordering them into spheres that orbit others spheres??

Can someone set me straight here and clear up my misunderstanding of how entropy works with cosmic materials like nebulas into stars and dust into planets? If it’s all gravity - then …(scratches head like cartoonish ape)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
C_Nordquist said:
energy is supposedly swirling and coalescing, seems like a high entropy state
It is hard to address the root cause of the question since you don’t explain why you believe this. However, in simplistic terms entropy is low when energy is concentrated into a small place and is thus a high temperature. Both of those conditions were found slightly after the Big Bang. The universe was very small and hot, meaning low entropy.

It is now much more spread out and cool, so entropy is higher.
 
  • #4
Dale said:
The universe was very small and hot.
I think you mean very dense and hot.
 
  • #5
pbuk said:
I think you mean very dense and hot.
Very small as well - so the entropy is low because you 'know' the position of everything - so accurately that being 'jumbled up' is less relevant to the measure of entropy(?)
 
  • #6
pbuk said:
I think you mean very dense and hot.
I meant small and hot for people thinking about entropy in general. But dense and hot is a better description of the early universe since it may have been infinite which is not exactly small.
 
  • Haha
Likes pbuk
  • #7
One key piece of evidence for the Big Bang, the microwave background radiation, indicates that in the beginning matter was in thermal equilibrium, ie a state of maximum entropy. And yet since then, with the expansion of the universe, entropy has been increasing.
'Hang on', we might say, 'How can entropy start at the maximum, and then still keep increasing?'
How to resolve this paradox?
First, let's consider the injection of a coloured gas into a closed box full of air. At the start, its distribution is not uniform, there is a coloured cloud distinct from the clear air, and entropy is minimal. With time, diffusion blurs then eradicates the distinction between the coloured cloud and the air, entropy increases to its maximum, and we're left with a tinted 'fog'. The progression here is, then, towards uniformity.
This however, is not a useful model for the early universe - and the reason is gravity.
At the the Big Bang, matter-energy which had been in thermal equilibrium, was now in an expanding space-time. However, not even the 'smoothing' effects of cosmic inflation could prevent the gravitational clumping together of matter into clouds, then stars and galaxies. This, then, represents a progression away from uniformity.
So, now we still have a paradox, right?
Apparently, yes - except that the universe may well have started, but it is far from finished...
What will happen to those stars and galaxies? Gravity, which played such a role in their coming into being, will also ensure their ultimate fate - as black holes.
The black holes will, in turn, fade away in Hawking radiation.
The result? The eternal exponential expansion of space-time filled with a thin 'mist' of radiation and elementary particles towards heat death, towards maximum uniformity - that is, maximum entropy.
So, if we hang on a few trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion... years, the paradox is resolved.
And seeing a paradox resolved has got to be worth the gloomy prospect of heat death, hasn't it?
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Dale said:
infinite which is not exactly small.
I couldn't disagree with that. :wink:
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #9
Paul Thatcher said:
in the beginning matter was in thermal equilibrium, ie a state of maximum entropy. And yet since then, with the expansion of the universe, entropy has been increasing.
'Hang on', we might say, 'How can entropy start at the maximum, and then still keep increasing?'
How to resolve this paradox?
An easier way to resolve it is to look at this “maximum” and realize that it isn’t actually the maximum. It is only a “maximum” if you hold some other quantities constant. And those quantities are not actually constant.
 
  • #10
Yes, true. Since writing, another perspective has occurred to me.
If physics as it stands can only deal with the universe after the Big Bang, ie with a dynamic universe, in which space-time itself does not remain constant, so it is not possible to speak of maximum entropy at the 'beginning' - and if quantum uncertainty means absolute zero cannot be reached, the expanding universe will only ever approach maximum entropy at the 'end', which never comes - then aren't we dealing with an illusion in speaking of a maximum?
So isn't this another way of expressing the need for a unified theory - or am I, a non-scientist who loves science, lost in space-time?
 
  • #11
sophiecentaur said:
I couldn't disagree with that. :wink:
"If God had intended us to use analogies, he would not have released Mathematics for our use."
This may have been a light-hearted quip, but reflect on its effect:
I'm a linguist and writer. For one reason or another, I did not learn higher mathematics. Should I therefore not think about physics, not be curious? If the dialogue is confined to mathematics, I, and of course millions of others, are excluded.
Further, should popular science, which uses so many analogies (not always accurate, it is true), be junked? I can think of plenty of politicians who would be only too glad to see science kept away from people and people kept away from science - and they are not the kind of people I want to see running the world, nor, I suspect, are they the kind who like to see engagement in science by the general population, for example, in fora like this.
Such a comment is off-putting and exclusive, not to mention hurtful.
Also, "he"? Really? Surely God's preferred pronoun is "she".
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970 and sophiecentaur
  • #12
Paul Thatcher said:
Should I therefore not think about physics,
That's a difficult question to answer. I would say that you should think about Physics and feast on its riches but hesitate to make ground breaking pronouncements about it, based just on extrapolation of analogy. From what you write, I wouldn't have you down as a BS merchant and, if you were to pronounce on Physics, you would probably quote a higher authority. (That's a compliment, btw.)
Any higher authority would not have used just analogies but done things thoroughly. I don't know of a more thorough and reliable approach to Science than to use the language of Mathematics (in the widest sense).
 
  • #13
Paul Thatcher said:
"If God had intended us to use analogies, he would not have released Mathematics for our use."
This may have been a light-hearted quip, but reflect on its effect:
I'm a linguist and writer. For one reason or another, I did not learn higher mathematics. Should I therefore not think about physics, not be curious? If the dialogue is confined to mathematics, I, and of course millions of others, are excluded.
Further, should popular science, which uses so many analogies (not always accurate, it is true), be junked? I can think of plenty of politicians who would be only too glad to see science kept away from people and people kept away from science - and they are not the kind of people I want to see running the world, nor, I suspect, are they the kind who like to see engagement in science by the general population, for example, in fora like this.
Such a comment is off-putting and exclusive, not to mention hurtful.
Also, "he"? Really? Surely God's preferred pronoun is "she".
What is going on here? You quote a post but then nothing in your post seems at all connected with or responsive to the post you quoted.

And please don’t make religious comments here at all
 
  • #14
Dale said:
What is going on here? You quote a post but then nothing in your post seems at all connected with or responsive to the post you quoted.

And please don’t make religious comments here at all
Excuse me, but I was replying to the line that appears under sophiecentaur's posts.
My mistake, I'm sure, if that wasn't clear - possibly I clicked in the wrong place.
I'm an atheist, so hardly inclined to bring God into it at all, but I don't think I am to blame if I reply to a post containing a reference to God.
Just in case any of this requires further illumination, please see below sophiecentaur's post, in which I received an interesting and considerate reply to my post, though I do not fully agree with it; sophiecentaur did at least understand what is going on here.
Your response, however, rather conveys the message that 'outsiders' are not really welcome in this forum.
sophiecentaur said:
That's a difficult question to answer. I would say that you should think about Physics and feast on its riches but hesitate to make ground breaking pronouncements about it, based just on extrapolation of analogy. From what you write, I wouldn't have you down as a BS merchant and, if you were to pronounce on Physics, you would probably quote a higher authority. (That's a compliment, btw.)
Any higher authority would not have used just analogies but done things thoroughly. I don't know of a more thorough and reliable approach to Science than to use the language of Mathematics (in the widest sense).
The idea of the apparent paradox and its "resolution" does indeed come from a higher authority (but not a Higher Authority), namely, Penrose; as far as I am aware, however, this is not an idea exclusive to him, therefore I did not see the need to reference that particular lecture (in which, BTW, he uses non-mathematical language to explain his point).
Far from being a pronouncement, it was a test of myself, to see whether I had grasped the essential point. Where better to do so than such a forum?
The compliment did not pass unnoticed or unappreciated!
 
  • #15
Paul Thatcher said:
I don't think I am to blame if I reply to a post containing a reference to God.
Some people can find references to such things when none were intended.
As for the term "higher authority" I don't need to look very high to find a higher one than I.
Dale said:
You quote a post but then nothing in your post seems at all connected with or responsive to the post you quoted.
He was quoting my signature. Even I had to read his post twice before I got the message.
@Paul Thatcher I think you may be over thinking all this. Go with popular Science but be careful where you get it from. If you want reliable sources then I'd suggest PF would be a safe source for references. You may have experienced a bit of the PF 'ton of bricks' effect. It keeps us all up to scratch though.
 
  • #16
Thanky you, sophiecentaur, for your replies. Scratched by falling bricks, but not wounded to the quick.
 
  • Haha
Likes sophiecentaur
  • #17
Paul Thatcher said:
I was replying to the line that appears under sophiecentaur's posts.
My mistake, I'm sure, if that wasn't clear
Ah, that makes sense. That is a signature and it doesn’t show up for people on a mobile (like me). So for me it came out of nowhere.

Paul Thatcher said:
Your response, however, rather conveys the message that 'outsiders' are not really welcome in this forum.
My apologies there. I just had no idea what you were talking about.
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970
  • #18
C_Nordquist said:
I was watching the Wonders of the Universe with Brian Cox documentary ...
Well, see, there's your problem right there. Pop science "documentaries" are entertainment and not science education. They get a LOT of stuff right but they get stuff wrong as well and if you aren't already versed in the topics you can't tell what they get right and what they get wrong.
 
  • Like
Likes Bystander
  • #19
I imagine that, like me, C_Nordquist came here to clarify things see and heard in popular science documentaries - and in any case, doesn't the need to be well-informed in a topic before one starts to look at it imply a break with causality?:wink:
 
  • #20
Paul Thatcher said:
I imagine that, like me, C_Nordquist came here to clarify things see and heard in popular science documentaries ...
Perfectly reasonable and a good use of PF, but I just like for folks to be aware that when they watch pop-science presentations they are not necessarily being educated and in fact may be being mislead.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #21
Very true - I see goodness knows how many examples of misleading explanations and theories (actually, I'm being polite - they're totally wrong) in the equivalent of popular science in my own field (language and linguistics), namely coursebooks and textbooks...
 
  • #22
Dale said:
Ah, that makes sense. That is a signature and it doesn’t show up for people on a mobile (like me). So for me it came out of nowhere.

My apologies there. I just had no idea what you were talking about.
All is cool, friction overcome, pleased to be part of the debate.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman and pinball1970
  • #23
Paul Thatcher said:
Thanky you, sophiecentaur, for your replies. Scratched by falling bricks, but not wounded to the quick.
Seven years here and I still think twice before posting! The strict rules mean you get high quality responses and solid references.
 
  • #24
pinball1970 said:
Seven years here and I still think twice before posting! The strict rules mean you get high quality responses and solid references.
Well, not always. Sometimes they let me post :smile:
 
  • Haha
Likes pinball1970
  • #25
phinds said:
Well, not always. Sometimes they let me post :smile:
9413 reaction points, a 'star' verified expert in science and maths, insights author...

I think we are safe.
 
  • #26
pinball1970 said:
I think we are safe.
Oh, you optimist, you. :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970
  • #27
Entropy is an extensive quantity - i.e. the amount of entropy depends on the volume being considered. "Entropy of the Big Bang" does not seem well-defined. What exactly is meant here?
 
  • #28
phinds said:
Oh, you optimist, you. :smile:

Vanadium 50 said:
Entropy is an extensive quantity - i.e. the amount of entropy depends on the volume being considered. "Entropy of the Big Bang" does not seem well-defined. What exactly is meant here?
Thanks. Wow, I think this was the question I needed to be asked. Time to think - which will, given my hotheadedness, contribute a little extra to the entropy...
 

1. What is entropy and how does it relate to the Big Bang and the fate of the universe?

Entropy is a measure of the disorder or randomness in a system. In the context of the Big Bang and the fate of the universe, entropy plays a crucial role in understanding how the universe began and how it will evolve. According to the second law of thermodynamics, the total entropy of a closed system (such as the universe) will always increase over time. This means that in the early stages of the universe, when it was highly ordered and low in entropy, it will eventually become more disordered and high in entropy as it expands and ages.

2. How does entropy contribute to the expansion of the universe?

As the universe expands, the amount of space available for particles and energy to exist also increases. This leads to an increase in the number of possible states that the universe can exist in, resulting in an increase in entropy. In other words, the expansion of the universe leads to an increase in disorder and randomness, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics.

3. Can entropy explain the beginning of the universe?

While entropy plays a crucial role in understanding the evolution of the universe, it cannot fully explain its beginning. The concept of entropy assumes that there was a pre-existing system that could become more disordered over time. However, the Big Bang theory suggests that the universe began from a singularity, a state of infinite density and order. Therefore, entropy alone cannot explain the beginning of the universe.

4. How does entropy affect the fate of the universe?

The increase in entropy over time has important implications for the fate of the universe. As the universe continues to expand and entropy increases, it will eventually reach a state of maximum entropy, also known as the heat death of the universe. At this point, all energy will be evenly distributed and no work can be done, resulting in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium and the end of the universe.

5. Are there any other factors that contribute to the fate of the universe?

While entropy is a major factor in determining the fate of the universe, other factors such as dark energy and the overall mass and density of the universe also play a role. Dark energy, which is responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe, will ultimately determine whether the universe will continue to expand forever or eventually collapse in a Big Crunch. The amount of matter and energy in the universe also affects its fate, as a high enough density could lead to a Big Crunch, while a lower density would result in a continued expansion.

Similar threads

  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Thermodynamics
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • Thermodynamics
Replies
4
Views
229
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
4
Views
915
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Cosmology
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Cosmology
Replies
25
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
836
Back
Top