I Why does entropy grow when a solar system is formed?

AI Thread Summary
Entropy increases during solar system formation due to the interplay of gravitational forces and energy distribution. While a protostellar cloud has lower entropy than the resulting solar system, the process of gravitational collapse leads to heating and radiation, which contributes to a net increase in entropy. As the gas shrinks, it radiates energy into space, spreading it over a larger volume, which outweighs the entropy decrease from matter clumping. The analogy of milk in coffee highlights that the initial energy confinement in the cloud is transformed as it evolves. Understanding this energy distribution is crucial to grasping why entropy grows in this context.
Rovolvo
Messages
2
Reaction score
4
TL;DR Summary
In "From eternity to here", Sean Carroll writes that the protostellar cloud had a lower entropy than te solar system it produced. That strikes me as odd. A solar system looks more arranged than a dust cloud. What am I missing here?
On page 50 of "From eternity to here", Sean Carroll writes that the protostellar cloud had a lower entropy than the solar system it produced. That strikes me as odd. A solar system looks more arranged than a dust cloud. When talking about entropy, someone always mentions the milk in the coffee. Milk in a drop of milk has lower entropy then milk spread in one of the billion ways it can spread between the "coffee molecules". Wouldn't you aggree, that the milk in a drop looks more like a planet and the milk all spread out looks more like the dustcloud. What am I missing here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A collapsing cloud of gas is not quite like milk in coffee. The crucial part is that there is an attractive force in the form of gravity.
On the one hand, it causes the cloud to shrink and clump up - which gives us a pause, as this reduces the entropy. But on the other hand, the gas heats up as it shrinks. And then radiates into space. And then shrinks some more. And then radiates. And so on. The key is not to forget about the radiation part.
If we want to think about this in terms of how ordered a system is, it's best to consider where the energy was when you had a cloud, and where it is when it's become a bunch of rocks. You should be able to see that a lot of the energy that was initially confined to the area of space where the cloud was, has been 'smeared' around a huge volume of space (as radiation). This wins over the decrease of entropy from matter clumping into dense balls.

John Baez has a nice write-up on the topic here: https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/entropy.html , with more detailed treatment. He's a bit coy in not wanting to provide the final answer on a plate, though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes berkeman, sophiecentaur, russ_watters and 4 others
Bandersnatch said:
A collapsing cloud of gas is not quite like milk in coffee. The crucial part is that there is an attractive force in the form of gravity.
On the one hand, it causes the cloud to shrink and clump up - which gives us a pause, as this reduces the entropy. But on the other hand, the gas heats up as it shrinks. And then radiates into space. And then shrinks some more. And then radiates. And so on. The key is not to forget about the radiation part.
If we want to think about this in terms of how ordered a system is, it's best to consider where the energy was when you had a cloud, and where it is when it's become a bunch of rocks. You should be able to see that a lot of the energy that was initially confined to the area of space where the cloud was, has been 'smeared' around a huge volume of space (as radiation). This wins over the decrease of entropy from matter clumping into dense balls.

John Baez has a nice write-up on the topic here: https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/entropy.html , with more detailed treatment. He's a bit coy in not wanting to provide the final answer on a plate, though.
Thanks, that makes so much sense. The energy part, that was what I was missing.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman, russ_watters and Bystander
Oh, poo. I've just noticed. The link attribution should read John Baez. Not his arguably more musical cousin Joan.

[Typo fixed in your post above by a Mentor] :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
Back
Top