Wasn't the universe more disordered in the past?

  • Thread starter Thread starter zeromodz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universe
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between the universe's past temperature and its disorder, questioning how this aligns with the second law of thermodynamics. It highlights that while the universe was hotter and seemingly more chaotic in the past, entropy, which measures disorder, behaves differently over time. The conversation emphasizes that temperature and entropy are distinct concepts, with the universe's early state being more uniform rather than chaotic. Additionally, it asserts that the universe will not reach absolute zero, as this would contradict the Uncertainty Principle. Overall, the dialogue explores the complexities of entropy and temperature in the context of cosmic evolution.
zeromodz
Messages
244
Reaction score
0
If the universe was hotter in the past, it was more chaotic and disordered with all the molecules and particles colliding with each other. How does this correspond to the second law of thermodynamics where things are supposed to get more chaotic as the time moves on, not backwards?
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
T and S are different quantities. Can you calculate dS/dt and show it is negative?
 
Vanadium 50 said:
T and S are different quantities. Can you calculate dS/dt and show it is negative?

Yeah, mathematically what your saying makes sense. However, I don't understand it conceptually. Entropy is supposed to mean disorder and chaos. The future of the universe going to end with a whimper, not a bang. Its going to be anything but chaotic with the temperature becoming absolute zero.
 
You are confusing temperature with entropy.
 
First, the universe will never reach absolute zero, that violates the Uncertainty Principle. Second, at the early stages, the universe was far more uniform than it is today and will be in the future. At the beginning, it was so hot that even all of the forces were identical.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top