Confused about entropy trumping evolution on universal scale

[Uglybb]

Andrew perhaps it is you who better go back and read the law SERIOUSLY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

here let me reprint it for you

"The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system"

It specifically says OVER time it does not say that it has to be VALID FOR EVERY SINGLE SECOND how the hell would you make anything work if you had no elasticity in the system.

We must also have >>> an isolated physical system <<<<

So things can temporarily violate the law if they are not at equilibrium or they are not isolated that is you are looking at one element in a non isolated system.

What is so hard to understand about that !

As I am reaffirming you can >>> locally <<< violate the law either way over time (the system isn't in equilibrium) or physically within an element which does not describe the whole system without the law failing

The point is you have to have elasticity to do work in physics. If nothing moves you can't do anything!

 

[Drakkith]

The problem you have is if gravity is driving the whole thing what is opposing it and why doesn't the whole universe just collapse and explode? See entropy has no force or driver it's a law remember.

Where you should have ended up is at the friendmann equations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_parameter#Density_parameter) and things should become clear to you how complex this is going to get.

What is opposing gravity? On the scale of a star, only the matter itself and the fact that it takes up space is opposing gravity. AKA The Pauli Exclusion Principle and such. The density parameter of the Friendmann Equations isn't applicable to the scale we are talking about. We are not discussing the entire universe as a whole, but merely the contraction of a gas cloud into a star. The universe doesn't collapse and explode because it is A. It is expanding. B. Gravity is a very weak force. and C. The accelerating expansion of the universe tells us that it can't happen anyways.

Now to back to evolution consider the way you have now framed evolution ... what happens as we get towards the end of the universe in terms of energy? Remember we have now framed it around the ability to utilize available energy. At some point in time and in some ways you are now predicting and mandating the outcome of the theory itself.

As we get towards the end of the universe, we have less and less energy available for use. More and more matter is fused into elements near Iron and Nickel and less elements to form new stars as the old ones die off. The Sun is our main source of energy for most life on earth. Assuming the Earth and life were still around after the Sun becomes a red giant and then turns into a white dwarf, we will have less and less available sunlight as the Sun cools down and emits less light and at lower frequencies. Eventually the sun will cool to near the temperature of the rest of the universe and cease to put out any meaningful amount of radiation. Somewhere along the way, there will not be enough energy output to sustain life on earth. Photosynthesis can no longer occur, and any useable fuels will be used up after a period of time. The end result, no more life.

Is it therefore now a theory or a evolutionary law now?.

It's rather interesting is it a theory currently which at some point becomes a law because of changes in the universe ... I certainly don't know sorry.

A theory and a law are not the same thing. The theory of evolution will never turn into the law of evolution.

A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena

A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like Newton's law of universal gravitation. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements.

 

[Drakkith]

The operation of a freezer or other similar device does NOT violate the laws of thermodynamics. A freezer is not an isolated system.

So things can temporarily violate the law if they are not at equilibrium or they are not isolated that is you are looking at one element in a non isolated system.

If the system isn't isolated, then the law says that it can happen. That is in direct agreement with the law, not violating it locally.

 

[Uglybb]

So let's talk about the cooling section alone in isolation.

Under the second law you can

(a) Say we can't use it because the system isn't isolated ... that is it is excluded from the law ... see the definition
(b) Call it a local violation

I personally don't care if you use (a) or (b) ... if you don't like local violation everywhere I have used that term replace it with that element is excluded .. same difference at heart.

You have no other options as defined by the law.Haven't you worked it out yet why GR (spacetime) and the 2nd law are intertwined?Look at the two exclusion or local violations on the 2nd law whatever you want to call them.

One is time and one is system/positional ... it's not accidental and the first law gave us conservation of energy

In laymans terms the 2nd law is essentially a mathematical description of a clutch or an elasticity on spacetime on average it is going to balance the energy.

Due to the limitation of balancing energy with the speed of light as a constant the universe can't balance every source of energy universe wide at every instant of time at every location ... that would be akin to trying to drive the biggest car you have ever seen without a clutch.

Imagine trying to balance up the energy from a photon in transit of 100 light years to its final transaction point. You would either have to balance it up step by step at every plank time and plank distance on its entire transition path or you just let spacetime be a bit elastic hence the friedmann equations.

Now if you are going to go for the stiff rigid model that the entire universe balances energy at every Planck time and every Planck distance you are going to have real fun trying to bring in quantum mechanics in with things jumping in and out of spacetime or different parts.

At heart it's easier to let Spacetime be plastic occam's razor.

In essence I suspect GR and the 2nd law are joined at the hip ... can I proove it well NO but that's all sort of moot.

 

[russ_watters]

So things can temporarily violate the law...

"Lisa, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"

-Homer

A law wouldn't be of much value if you could violate it. This should be obvious and there is no point in continuing to go around and around in circles over this. You need to go read up on the scientific method and stop wasting our members' time. Thread locked.