Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The impossibility of any life due to an expanding universe and entropy

  1. Absolutely correct knowledge.

    0 vote(s)
  2. Nearly all correct knowledge.

    0 vote(s)
  3. Some flawed knowledge

    0 vote(s)
  4. Completely flawed knowledge...

    0 vote(s)
  1. Jul 14, 2011 #1
    Hi All,

    I'm a newbie here and I don't know enough about physics to answer my question, so I will submit what I think I know to be true, then pose some questions, therefore please pardon any allowable mistakes.

    1) Time is immaterial for my purposes in this posting, at least in a non-cosmic(local) manner, so there is no need to be apologetic, in any manner, for relationships with local time versus cosmic time (i.e. relationships with local time for instance for our kind of life forms, etc.)

    2) Let's assume that an neverending expanding universe is more probable versus the universe reaching a state where it will start to collapse in on itself. In the end, it doesn't matter which one, at least for my purposes, but nonetheless lets assume the expanding universe.

    3) Entropy is an intrinsic property of all energy/matter transformations.

    4) Taking the assumption in (2) to be true of an neverending expanding universe, then the universe will reach some point where ALL energy/matter transformations will no longer be possible, due to the entropic properties of energy/matter transformations.

    5) Questions:
    a) Am I so far correct (in laymen's terms)?
    b) Will the universe eventually reach the point (based on the assumption in (2)) where all is star dust (with absolutely no more energy/matter transformations) thus making it impossible for any form of life (not just our own) to exist?

    Ai Pragma
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2011
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 14, 2011 #2
  4. Jul 14, 2011 #3
    Whenever I take any classes at my local university, teachers insist on never using sources like wikipedia due to the unreliability of its sources, nonetheless I enjoyed reading the content given at that link you provided.

  5. Jul 14, 2011 #4
    I don't really care what teachers or academia say about wikipedia. It should be used with caution and context, but it has helped me so many times in engineering work and in my studies. Textbooks are just as prone to errors and false information since their level of peer review can vary widely. Until there is something else in as clear a format that is free and has as much information with more credible sources, I'll always use wikipedia.
  6. Jul 14, 2011 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I agree with DragonPetter, as long as you read it critically Wikipedia is one of the best sources out there. It does have editors and contributors, it boggles my mind that people seem to have this vision of it being a free-for-all forum where everything is wrong.

    I have a problem with your poll, non of the options are valid. What you say fits with contemporary understanding but in science we never use terms like "absolutely correct". Due to the heat death there will be a point when no interactions take place so by our current understanding there will be no possibility of life.

    Freeman Dyson did suggest some possible way of [URL [Broken] around the heat death[/url] but it seems like a flawed and impossible concept.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  7. Jul 14, 2011 #6
    I'm eliminating the poll, for brevity sake.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook