Confused about entropy trumping evolution on universal scale

[Nyxie]

As the title says, I am confused - very confused.

I know that the 2nd law of thermo means that the universe is increasingly disordered on a universal scale, even though there has been an apparent increase in order since the "Big Bang." Does that mean entropy isn't exactly synonymous with a universal measure of disorder? If it is, where does the increase in entropy go?

When life "self-organized" or "appeared" or whatever, physicists explain that this local decrease in entropy results in increased entropy somewhere else. It seems this entropy would get cramped in a static (i.e. non-expanding), finite and apparently increasingly ordered universe. So maybe this fits in with the expansion of the universe.

I realize physicists can be uncomfortable talking about lifeforms in a physically analytic way, but please! I just want to understand.

 

[Drakkith]

I believe that entropy was at a minimum when the universe began and has been increasing ever since.

Then life "self-organized" or "appeared" or whatever, physicists explain that this local decrease in entropy results in increased entropy somewhere else. It seems this entropy would get cramped in a static (i.e. non-expanding), finite and apparently increasingly ordered universe. So maybe this fits in with the expansion of the universe.

Alright, think of the sun. It is fusing hydrogen in its core and in the process sending out light and other forms of energy out into space. This results in an increase in entropy for the sun. I'll explain why this matters in a second.

Now, down here on Earth we have life. ALL life uses something to "fuel" itself. Without a fuel, all life would cease to exist. For example, plants take CO2 out of the air and use photosynthesis to break it into Carbon and Oxygen. It then uses the carbon, and a few other chemicals gathered from the ground/air, to form fuel for itself in the form of sugars and such. The oxygen is expelled as "waste" into the atmosphere. Certain animals eat these plants and use the fuel the plant created as it's own fuel.

So how does that relate to entropy? Well, look at CO2 for example. It TAKES energy to split carbon and oxygen up. This results in a decrease in entropy when this happens. (For the carbon/oxygen) This doesn't magically cause entropy to increase elsewhere. Instead, think back to the sun! The sun is already increasing in entropy. Plants, and by extention all life on earth, merely use this increase in entropy for the sun to their advantage!

Also, entropy is not a "thing". It is a measure of a system's properties, so it can't get "cramped".

 

[Nyxie]

Thanks, that makes sense! I still have some questions though.

I believe that entropy was at a minimum when the universe began and has been increasing ever since.QUOTE]

What was the minimum entropy, zero? (pre-big bang had number of states = 1 or something)?

The big bang sounds very disordered to me. No structures existed until particles started bonding and interacting in various ways to forms galaxies etc.
If "entropy = disorder" then why did order emerge from a previously disordered universe? Don't tell me the big bang was "ordered"?!...What am I missing here?

The "cramping" is the spatial volume of ordered states, which wouldn't leave room for a disordered part of space (got a feeling this is a grave misconception but, hey...)

I'm being very frank; I just don't get why an increase in the number of states of a system (leading to entropy increase) make it more chaotic or disordered; for all I know it could provide access to even more ordered states, which may be "chaotic" but nevertheless ordered. Life is a kind of "ordered chaos," so such a thing does exist. I'd define order as complexity (or perhaps nonhomogeneity), and at least on Earth complexity grows all the time.

Basically, what kind of observable effects does entropy have? (Ignorant question sure, but I can't seem to find answers.)

 

[Mapes]

Basically, what kind of observable effects does entropy have? (Ignorant question sure, but I can't seem to find answers.)

http://www.john.maloney.org/Papers/Determining%20entropy%20%285-2-07%29.pdf"

 

[atyy]

It is somewhat speculative, but one reason the entropy now is larger than earlier in the universe's history is the formation of black holes, each of which has very high entropy. It is believed that there is a black hole at the centre of many galaxies.

http://preposterousuniverse.com/eternitytohere/faq.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1847
http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.3983

 

[Uglybb]

The whole question is stupid

Its a science law go look up the difference between a science law and a theory!

You can violate a law we do it often because they are law's they have conditions they could never have forseen. Think Newton's laws of physics !

The 2nd law of thermo is worse it's based around probability and it allows local violation of the law so long as the global view achieve's more randomness.

Any living thing, planets, suns and everything is in violation of the law if you want to look at it like that because the universe should just be plain old boring gas (the most random state you can get)

So your question fails at two levels.

But in answer to your question we would still say Evolution so long as it brings about more randomness think of the chemicals and waste etc that different animal specialization brings is actually in complete agreement with the 2nd law ... you have a local violation but a global preservation of the law ... all perfectly normal.

 

[A_B]

The question is NOT stupid, and your definitions of "Law" and "Theory" seem a bit odd.

A law is a generalization of observational data, for example, every time I drop a stone, it falls towards the earth, I generalize this observation by stating the law that things fall towards the earth. By making more careful observations I can improve on this law, by saying that the things fall with a constant acceleration, g, at the Earth's surface. And if I do even more measurements, I'll be able to extend my law to Newton's law of gravitation.

A theory is an explanation of a phenomenon. When Newton stated his law of gravitation, he did NOT have a theory of gravitation. What he did have was a theory for planetary motion, because this now was explained by an underlying principle.


A law is indeed confined to its appropriate conditions (the law that things fall with uniform acceleration g is correct only near the surface of the earth). But the law of entropy has been sufficiently tried and tested so that it was taken to be a universal law (and this is still very successful in modern physics, look at black holes!). Not only this, but the second law of thermodynamics has gained a theoretical underpinning through statistical mechanics, where it can be restated as the tendency of a system to occupy macrostates that are most likely for the system.

The only condition where the second law does not hold is in the microscopic world, where a system consists of very few particles, and statistical fluctuations can occasionally result in a decrease in entropy. Theoretically, this is also possible for macroscopic systems, but is is very,very,very,very,very unlikely.

The question though, refers to the entropy of the universe, and of living organisms, which are definitely macroscopic systems.


Now my 2 cents for answering the original question. It has already been mentioned that although life seems to decrease entropy, this is more than compensated for by the increasing entropy of the burning sun, which should answer that question.
Now about the universe. The idea is that in the beginning, entropy was very low, but the universe was also a very uniform thing, which one could see as a very disordered state. The thing is, entropy is not the same as disorder. While in many cases an increase in entropy corresponds to an increase in disorder, this is not always so. A high entropy really meas a more likely state, and the more likely state of lots and lots of matter is clustered together due to gravity, so matter started to form little (well, big actually) "ordered" structures.


Alex

 

[Uglybb]

The question is NOT stupid, and your definitions of "Law" and "Theory" seem a bit odd.
Alex

My definition of law and theory is not odd it is the science accepted principle ... how many links would you like
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)
(http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm)

A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon they do not need provide answers as to what, why or how.

Ugly's law of physic's forum states "99% of question asked on physics forum ar mundane"

Law shown by observation no reason given as to why or how.

It is only valid within the confines of the observation.

A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are and it takes only one violation to prove a theory wrong.

When faced with "100 author's against Einstein he correctly commented why 100 it would take but 1"

I really love statements like "The only condition where the second law does not hold is in the microscopic world" define the exact size that this magnificient switch between the microscopic world and the macro world happens and why? Please do explain?

This is the whole fairytale physics made for Quantum Mechanics that ohh don't worry it only happens at small scales ... only they were wrong weren't they as we now know macroscopic objects are subject to QM it's just not as easy or obvious.

It may make you explain stuff easier and sleep better at night but such random choices of size have no scientific basis ... hence there is a fundamental problem you just choose to ignore it.

Not only this, but the second law of thermodynamics has gained a theoretical underpinning through statistical mechanics.

Now my 2 cents for answering the original question. It has already been mentioned that although life seems to decrease entropy, this is more than compensated for by the increasing entropy of the burning sun, which should answer that question.
Now about the universe. The idea is that in the beginning, entropy was very low, but the universe was also a very uniform thing, which one could see as a very disordered state. The thing is, entropy is not the same as disorder. While in many cases an increase in entropy corresponds to an increase in disorder, this is not always so. A high entropy really meas a more likely state, and the more likely state of lots and lots of matter is clustered together due to gravity, so matter started to form little (well, big actually) "ordered" structures.
Alex

And now we have real big problems ...

First you need to really go look at "inflationary" and "big bang" theory again. It starts out as small compact highly ordered very dense structure and it expands. If you accept some views it may have even been a solid, going out through a liquid phase to the gas phase we now see.

The solution to the 2nd law of thermodynamics is that because the universe is expanding and gravity is an attractive force it keeps getting shifted out of equilibrium, and in the drive to reach a new equilibrium state, you can get pockets of order occurring without violating the second law, because the maximum allowable entropy also keeps increasing. Hence we can have stars and planet formation.

Those planets and stars are forming right now if the universe wasn't still expanding they would be in direct violation of the 2nd law.

See your microscopic world just got very big indeed didn't it ... we allow local violation of the 2nd law on a truly massive scale. Still believe violation is a microscopic thing.

You other part of your answer leads into the other problem the law is based on probability so as such can not ever be a theory and as such can't explain anything.

When can you have a theory that is 99.9999% right ... you can't its either right or its not.

 

[Andrew Mason]

Any living thing, planets, suns and everything is in violation of the law if you want to look at it like that because the universe should just be plain old boring gas (the most random state you can get).

So your question fails at two levels.

But in answer to your question we would still say Evolution so long as it brings about more randomness think of the chemicals and waste etc that different animal specialization brings is actually in complete agreement with the 2nd law ... you have a local violation but a global preservation of the law ... all perfectly normal.

The second law is a LAW. It is not routinely violated. It is a statistical law but it is no less of a physical law because it is statistical. It is never violated at the macroscopic level.

The second law does not say that entropy must always increase locally. Local decreases in entropy are not local violations of the second law. Your refrigerator decreases entropy locally. It does not violate the second law.

The second law says is that total entropy of the system and surroundings cannot decrease in any thermodynamic process. The existence of planets, life, galaxies, etc does not violate this law.

AM

 

[Uglybb]

READ AGAIN CAREFULLY WHAT I SAID PLEASE

IT IS ROUTINELY VIOLATED >>>>> LOCALLY <<<<<<< ... ROUTINELY

No animal could exist no engine or chemical reaction work if it was not allowed to be locally violated.

The key to 2nd law is you have to consider the system as a whole and sometimes that may be the whole universe.

What is so hard to understand about that ... seriously.

Read the section in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy) how do you think the air conditioner example would work if they couldn't violate the 2nd law locally

It follows from the second law of thermodynamics that the entropy of a system that is not isolated may decrease. An air conditioner, for example, may cool the air in a room, thus reducing the entropy of the air of that system.

SEE LOCAL VIOLATION

The heat expelled from the room (the system), involved in the operation of the air conditioner, will always make a bigger contribution to the entropy of the environment than will the decrease of the entropy of the air of that system. Thus, the total of entropy of the room plus the entropy of the environment increases, in agreement with the second law of thermodynamics.

Obeyance of the law as a total system.

The problem is you guys conviently dismiss that locally violated bit.

Hence why you can't understand the universe bit.

 

[Nyxie]

The thing is, entropy is not the same as disorder. While in many cases an increase in entropy corresponds to an increase in disorder, this is not always so.

That seems like the logical conclusion, just as saying disorder is the same as entropy sounds naive.

It starts out as small compact highly ordered very dense structure and it expands. If you accept some views it may have even been a solid, going out through a liquid phase to the gas phase we now see.

How can there be a structure if it began as infinitely dense matter, as the standard theory holds?

 

[A_B]

Ok, let's back up and see what's exactly the discussion here. From you second post I see your definitions of law and theory are indeed not odd, the problem seems to be centered around the validity of the laws of physics:

The whole question is stupid
You can violate a law we do it often because they are law's they have conditions they could never have forseen. Think Newton's laws of physics !

The 2nd law of thermo is worse it's based around probability and it allows local violation of the law so long as the global view achieve's more randomness.

The conditions under which a law holds true are usually stated as a part of the law, so that the law does always hold. Where such conditions are not stated, it is either negligence on the author's part, or the conditions in which the law does not hold are so remote from the context in which the law is being discussed that the author doesn't bother to mention "oh yeah, and you should know that this law doesn't hold under such and so obscure conditions". Or the conditions under which the law does not hold are simply not known, and hence never observed. In such a situation, is it not reasonable to induce universality of the law? This "courageous induction" is key to the development of science. As science and technology develops, deviations from the previously accepted law will be found, and with them the conditions under which the old law does not hold, and then the quest for a better law begins. In the case of the law of entropy, no condition under which it does not hold has ever been found.

I said that the second law does not hold in the microscopic world, this is actually wrong because, in microscopic systems consisting of only a few particles, entropy simply is not well defined, neither are most other thermodynamic quantities, so you can't even talk about the laws of thermodynamics at that scale.



A little on what Uglyb calls "local violation of the second law". A local increase in entropy is NOT a violation of any law. The second law says That the entropy of a closed system always increases. These local violations are not violations of the second law, because the space in which entropy increases is not, and cannot be isolated from the rest of the universe. The net change in entropy of any closed system is always positive.

Alex

 

[Nyxie]

OK, this (Wikipedia, "Heat Death") explains a lot:

Inflationary cosmology suggests that in the early universe, before cosmic inflation, energy was uniformly distributed,[6] and the universe was thus in a state superficially similar to heat death. However, these two states are actually very different: in the early universe, gravity was a very important force, and in a gravitational system, if energy is uniformly distributed, entropy is quite low, compared to a state in which most matter has collapsed into black holes. Thus, such a state is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, as it is thermodynamically unstable.[7][8] However, in the heat death scenario, the energy density is so low that the system can be thought of as non-gravitational, such that a state in which energy is uniformly distributed is a thermal equilibrium state, i.e., the state of maximal entropy.

The final state of the universe depends on the assumptions made about its ultimate fate, and these assumptions have varied considerably over the late 20th century and early 21st century. In a "closed" universe that undergoes recollapse, a heat death is expected to occur, with the universe approaching arbitrarily high temperature and maximal entropy as the end of the collapse approaches.[citation needed] In an "open" or "flat" universe that continues expanding indefinitely, a heat death is also expected to occur[citation needed], with the universe cooling to approach absolute zero temperature and approaching a state of maximal entropy over a very long time period. There is dispute over whether or not an expanding universe can approach maximal entropy; it has been proposed that in an expanding universe, the value of maximum entropy increases faster than the universe gains entropy, causing the universe to move progressively further away from heat death.[citation needed]

 

[Uglybb]

Woot you get it ... Alex

I am not sure if they teach the 2nd law wrong at school's these day or what but for some reason I see lot's of people whole don't realize the law is on the system not each individual energy transfer.

As we see a fridge would not work if that was the case.

Local violation especially in machines and biology is by far the norm. But as a system they obey to the law. If it didn't obey the law as a system you would have a perpertual machine or be making energy.

I think it is even in chemistry but not my area so I won't comment.

Space itself has local violations but the system as a whole seems to obey read the citation posted above by Nyxie. And yes Nyxie see if the universe was closed we would heat die if its expanding we die a cold death take your pick of theory. There are unfortunately even more variations than that.

 

[Uglybb]

I should conclude with explaining as I usually have to with students

If we can locally violate how do we know when the system is closed and the 2nd law should be correct.

Well that's easy .. we have the first law ... when the energy balances we have by definition a closed system and the 2nd law should hold.

 

[Uglybb]

And now we have gone through all that let's go back to original question from the OP

Do we have energy closure and obeyance of the first law in Evolution as a concept.

NO !

So whether or not it violates the 2nd law is totally irrelevant we don't have a closed system.

And so the question as it is asked is STUPID at physics.

 

[A_B]

errr.. I don't know how you have interpreted this discussion, but my opinion has not changed throughout the course of it. The thing I had a problem with was

The whole question is stupid
You can violate a law we do it often because they are law's they have conditions they could never have forseen. Think Newton's laws of physics !

Here you say the following:
There is law A which holds under conditions (a). We observe an event under conditions (b) != (a) where A does not hold. You say this constitutes a violation of the law, I say it does not.

(it is from this quote that I inferred that your definition of law is a little odd)

 

[Uglybb]

No I explained that LOCAL violations of the second law are common and routine to which I believe you objected.

The second law is never guaranteed to work without closure of the system under the first law in that you have accounted for all the energy. Once you can account for all energy in and out of a system the second law should hold no known violations to date.

I cooled a room, I made an ice block are all obvious violations of the 2nd law.

They don't disprove the 2nd law because we do not have closure of the energy and you know when I say those things the energy is being transferred somewhere else hence we have not got the full system as the law requires.

If that's what you meant and I misunderstood then you are not in error.

Some on here clearly were confused and thought the 2nd law was at each and every point and each and every thing in a system.

Hence the stupidity of why would the theory of evolution ever need to comply to the 2nd law of thermodynamics it doesn't guarantee or even talk about energy balance.

 

[A_B]

Our problem seems to have been one of miscommunication, but as you sais earlier, back to the original question!

Nyxie, maybe you'd be interested in the book "What is life" by Erwin Schrödinger.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521427088/?tag=pfamazon01-20
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Life%3F"

I never read it, but 'm planning to. I've heard lot's of good about it, and I know it has an elaborate discussion of entropy and life. In the lecture on which the book is based, Schrödinger introduced the concept of "negative entropy" "off of which life feeds."

Alex

 

[Nyxie]

Uglybb - Basic politeness helps in life.

A_B - Didn't know Schrodinger wrote about that. Life is obviously some kind of spontaneous reversal of entropy - which seems weird; what else (locally) reverses the 2nd law? I don't believe vitalism.
Looks very interesting, I'll read into it!



William James Sidis talks about this in 'The Animate and the Inanimate,' though as he himself says in the Preface it is *perfectly speculative*:

"This work sets forth a theory which is speculative in nature, there being no verifying experiments. It is based on the idea of the reversibility of everything in time; that is, that every type of process has its time-image, a corresponding process which is its exact reverse with respect to time. This accounts for all physical laws but one, namely, the second law of thermodynamics. This law has been found in the nineteenth century to be a source of a great deal of difficulty. The eminent physicist, Clerk-Maxwell, in the middle of the nineteenth century, while giving a proof of that law, admitted that reversals are possible by imagining a "sorting demon" who could sort out the smaller particles, and separate the slower ones from the faster ones. This second law of thermodynamics brought in the idea of energy-level, of unavailable energy (or "entropy" as it was called by Clausius) which was constantly increasing."

Summary of his very interesting speculation on local entropy reversal can be found here:
http://www.sidis.net/ANIM17.htm

 

[Drakkith]

I hope this is correct. I THINK this explains why I look at it this way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(energy_dispersal )

Look at it this way. When the universe began, it cooled down and formed massive amounts of Hydrogen, Helium, and a smattering of other elements. About 13 billion years from then, aka the present, all that Hydrogen and Helium has formed galaxies, stars, nebula, and all sorts of stellar phenomena. Inside of stars the lighter elements are fused, which liberates energy, and are turned into heavier elements. This continues until the star reaches the end point, at which it cannot create any further elements. Depending on the stellar mass this could be carrbon/oxygen, or it could be Iron, Nickel, or other elements near them.

So what does this have to do with entropy? Well, Iron and Nickel are both at the top of the binding energy chart. This means that you CANNOT get energy out of the fusing or splitting of their nuclei. So over time, these elements build up as lighter elements get fused and heavier elements created in supernova and such decay into lighter elements. Eventually we will wind up with a large percentage of matter in the universe being near the top of the binding energy chart. Since we cannot get much energy, if any, out of any reactions with these elements, the entropy is very high. We have "used" the energy from all that original hydrogen and helium and ended up with heavier elements that we cannot get energy from.

So, in regards to entropy, we can say that the binding energy has been dispersed by fusing elements into heavier ones up to Iron, and by splitting heavier elelements into lighter elements down to Iron.

 

[Andrew Mason]

I cooled a room, I made an ice block are all obvious violations of the 2nd law.

I think you understand that this is NOT a violation of the second law so it is just the way you are expressing this. The problem is that expressing it this way will confuse students of physics who are trying to understand the second law.

The way you have stated this is WRONG. Making a block of ice is not a violation in any way shape or form of the second law (ie neither an obvious or non-obvious violation). All the second law says is that the magnitude of reduction in entropy of the block of ice has to be accompanied by an increase in entropy elsewhere of greater magnitude. There is no violation of the second law in making the block of ice.

Hence the stupidity of why would the theory of evolution ever need to comply to the 2nd law of thermodynamics it doesn't guarantee or even talk about energy balance.

First of all, this is not a stupid question. Stupid questions are rarely asked. The only stupid question is one that has no possibility of leading to an improved understanding on the part of the questioner. Our discussion shows that this question has some beneficial effect in furthering the questioner's understanding of the second law.

The first law deals with energy balance. The second law assumes the first law (ie. it assumes energy is balanced) and goes further. One equivalent statement of the second law is simply that heat flow cannot occur from a colder to a hotter body without doing work. So if heat flows from a colder to a hotter body (thereby resulting in a decrease of entropy) that does not violate the second law. It would only violate the second law if work is not done in the process.

Now to the question: In order for life forms to develop and function (lets assume that photosynthesis is required for a cell to develop and operate and that photosynthesis is a thermodynamic process in which the entropy of the cell decreases) there has to be work done on the molecules in the cell.

So the question is: what is the work that is done and what supplies it? Good question. Fair question. If work is done on the molecules of the cell, there is no violation of the second law.

AM

 

[Uglybb]

To the first part of your answer I agree

The way you have stated this is WRONG. Making a block of ice is not a violation in any way shape or form of the second law (ie neither an obvious or non-obvious violation). All the second law says is that the magnitude of reduction in entropy of the block of ice has to be accompanied by an increase in entropy elsewhere of greater magnitude. There is no violation of the second law in making the block of ice.

And so the same argument stands

There is a star forming in galaxy XYZ right this minute (you are condensing a state of matter) exactly as above so now there has to be accompanied by an increase in entropy elsewhere of greater magnitude ... using your words.

See the problem they are all dancing around the issue because they don't like where this all goes. Where does all the energy we know must be created from this go?

I understand the sensitivity teaching this to students at certain schools and Drak for example has contrived a way to teach it (which at it's heart is wrong).


Now to your second part with evolution.

Evolution is based on "survival of the fittest" not cell processes or any other random criteria. If conditions arise that it favours things to be one cell big that is what evolution theory says will survive.

So unless you can get an absolute link between "survival of the fittest" being based on energy the 2nd law has absolutely nothing to say about it. Remember we need energy closure by your own definitions above.

The 2nd law also has very little to say about economic theory or any other theory that does not have at it's core the concept of energy closure.

You might be able to contrive answers to answer student question but realize the answer is contrived.

 

[Drakkith]

There is a star forming in galaxy XYZ right this minute (you are condensing a state of matter) exactly as above so now there has to be accompanied by an increase in entropy elsewhere of greater magnitude ... using your words.

Incorrect. The gas that makes up a star increases in entropy as it is compressed, ignited, and burned in nucleus fusion. This is a result of gravitational attraction. The increase in entropy is happening to the gas itself. This is a naturally occurring process that doesn't require a machine to use work to do it.

In contrast, a freezer must use energy to remove heat from the water and move it to the outside of the freezer, which normally would not happen because the outside is warmer than the inside and heat only flows from hot to cold unless you perform work. This reduces the entropy inside the freezer and increases it outside.

See the problem they are all dancing around the issue because they don't like where this all goes. Where does all the energy we know must be created from this go?

The energy from the star? It is given off as electromagnetic radiation, AKA light, and various subatomic particles. Is that what you meant?

I understand the sensitivity teaching this to students at certain schools and Drak for example has contrived a way to teach it (which at it's heart is wrong).

I could be incorrect, but I think my example is correct at heart. If not, please explain why.

Evolution is based on "survival of the fittest" not cell processes or any other random criteria. If conditions arise that it favours things to be one cell big that is what evolution theory says will survive.

A common misunderstanding. In fact, it is Natural Selection that causes evolution to favor things which result in an increased chance for an organism to survive and produce offspring. Evolution itself is merely the actual changing of species over time, and doesn't care what causes it. Whether through random mutations, natural selection, or man made selection it is all evolution.

So unless you can get an absolute link between "survival of the fittest" being based on energy the 2nd law has absolutely nothing to say about it. Remember we need energy closure by your own definitions above.

If I understand this correctly, then your answer to where is the energy coming from is "The Sun". If it weren't for the sun, then photosynthesis would not occur. Since this is the basis for most of life on earth, the Sun provides the overwhelming majority of the energy needed for life to function.

Note that the sun isn't the ONLY source of energy. There are life forms at the bottom of the ocean that survive because of the heat generated from underwater vents and various chemicals and elements there. In either case, without these sources of energy life would not be here.

 

[Uglybb]

Lovely story of star creation shame its not true.

See long before your ignition you need accretion of mass.

You may also want to see (http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-star-formation.html)
The star formation rate isn't related to size its related to density and density is related to what?

This is the problem of star formation you have to find a way to bring a low entropy object into being before you can balance the whole equation by getting ignition. Essentially the same problem as trying to get detonation of an atomic bomb easy to wave a wand at and say see once it starts it all balances a totally different thing to actually getting it started.

Why do you think star formation is not understood well.

Hit google or ask an astrophycist to explain it to you.Now to your second part I am happy with your definitions so I am going to create energy closure and a new modified theory of evolution using your own words. The adjustments in capitals.

Natural Selection that causes evolution to favor things which ARE ABLE TO USE ANY AVAILABLE ENERGY SOURCE and result in an increased chance for an organism to survive and produce offspring. Evolution itself is merely the actual changing of species over time, and doesn't care what causes it. Whether through random mutations, natural selection, or man made selection it is all evolution.

Happy with that definition?

*Hint you may want to stop and ponder that definition very very carefully.

 

[Andrew Mason]

And so the same argument stands

What statement of the second law are you using? Please explain how a refrigerator violates that statement of the second law.

There is a star forming in galaxy XYZ right this minute (you are condensing a state of matter) exactly as above so now there has to be accompanied by an increase in entropy elsewhere of greater magnitude ... using your words.

These are complicated things to analyse in terms of entropy. Part of the difficulty is that the energy that drives these processes was stored as gravitational and nuclear potential energy, not heat flow. Gravitational and nuclear potential energy are very concentrated - low entropy - forms of energy. That low entropy state is lost in the process (gravitational potential energy is converted to heat flow; nuclear potential energy is converted to heat flow). This can be analysed in terms of heat flowing out of the universe and into the star at a high temperature at the centre of the star and then radiated back out into the universe at a lower temperature so $dS = -dQ/Th + dQ/Tc > 0$

Now to your second part with evolution.

Evolution is based on "survival of the fittest" not cell processes or any other random criteria. If conditions arise that it favours things to be one cell big that is what evolution theory says will survive.

Evolution is not easy to analyse in terms of thermodynamics. But life and evolution of that life would not exist if heat flow from the sun to the Earth did not occur. And that process involves an overall increase in entropy of the universe.

AM

 

[Drakkith]

Lovely story of star creation shame its not true.

See long before your ignition you need accretion of mass.

So your saying that the gas that forms a star isn't attracted by gravity and eventually compressed enough to heat it to high enough temperatures to sustain nuclear fusion? That's pretty much exactly how it happens.

You may also want to see (http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-star-formation.html)
The star formation rate isn't related to size its related to density and density is related to what?

And your point is what? I didn't say anything about star formation rate, and the fact that density is what decides formation rate is pretty much obvious.

This is the problem of star formation you have to find a way to bring a low entropy object into being before you can balance the whole equation by getting ignition. Essentially the same problem as trying to get detonation of an atomic bomb easy to wave a wand at and say see once it starts it all balances a totally different thing to actually getting it started.

Why do you think star formation is not understood well.

This is entirely incorrect. The gas already exists and requires nothing else other than the mass to accrue. You don't even need to know anything about entropy to understand that.

Hit google or ask an astrophycist to explain it to you.

Already done.

Natural Selection that causes evolution to favor things which ARE ABLE TO USE ANY AVAILABLE ENERGY SOURCE and result in an increased chance for an organism to survive and produce offspring. Evolution itself is merely the actual changing of species over time, and doesn't care what causes it. Whether through random mutations, natural selection, or man made selection it is all evolution.

Is that supposed to be some "new" definition or something? Life itself is already required to be able to use available energy sources. Otherwise the processes that make life possible wouldn't exist. Natural selection is about the pressures which cause organisms to evolve in certain ways. Bringing entropy and energy into the discussion of it is possible, and might be required in an extended discussion of it, but here it mostly just confuses the issues.

*Hint you may want to stop and ponder that definition very very carefully.

If you had some hidden meaning, feel free to share.

 

[Uglybb]

To Andrew:

"Please explain how a refrigerator violates that statement of the second law" ... I NEVER NOT ONCE SAID THAT so let's go through this again because people for some reason can't read.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics can be used with 2 methods normally

Method (a): Used primarily on very simple systems.

You find two points on the system which provide energy closure.
When viewed from these two points the 2nd law should be valid.

Method (b): Used primarily on very complex systems where you are not sure where 2 points of energy closure are.

Step1 Start on an element ... does it violate the 2nd law
Yes ... add next element in and test the new joined elements back via step 1
No .. you have energy closure


NOTE: You can't use method (B) to proove the law wrong you are using it in reverse to find the closure and hence you had to make the assumption the law was not violated.

So back to our refrigerator ... which let's say is a complicated refrigerator comprising of electronic peltier devices, fans, compressors systems, chemical cooling this is the mother of all fridges.

It may be actually hard to find two points for method (a) to work there are multiple sources of energy etc.

Method (b) however works easily and at the end of the process I have found two points of energy closure.


Method (b) is used a lot when studing complicated systems .. someone much higher up had obviously not seen method (b) and really could not get there head around the concept of a local violation which is allowed on that method.

 

[Uglybb]

To Drak:

I am not trying to be a smartarse or pick on you or anything and I am well aware we take shortcuts teaching this stuff.

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.

As a shortcut post ignition I have no problem with your explanation.



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.

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.

 

[Andrew Mason]

To Andrew:

"Please explain how a refrigerator violates that statement of the second law" ... I NEVER NOT ONCE SAID THAT so let's go through this again because people for some reason can't read.

You said this:

I cooled a room, I made an ice block are all obvious violations of the 2nd law.

I assumed that you were referring to some system in which heat flowed from cold to hot. If not, what were you referring to?

Step1 Start on an element ... does it violate the 2nd law
Yes ... add next element in and test the new joined elements back via step 1
No .. you have energy closure
...
Method (b) is used a lot when studing complicated systems .. someone much higher up had obviously not seen method (b) and really could not get there head around the concept of a local violation which is allowed on that method.

You seem to think that the second law can be violated. It can't. Not even locally. It is a law.

Is this your own theory of thermodynamics that you made up? If not, can you refer us to the source of this theory that local violations of entropy routinely occur?

AM

 

[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.