The entropy of systems

More
19 years 1 month ago #14191 by PhilJ
Replied by PhilJ on topic Reply from Philip Janes
The Second Rule of Thermodynamics says that the entropy of a <b>closed or isolated</b> system increases. Earth is an open system in which entropy decreases; Earth receives low-entropy light energy from the Sun and radiates high-entropy heat energy into cold space. That simple exchange is sufficient to explain the evolution of life on Earth.

In the bigger picture, the question is whether the universe is an open or closed system. Most people assume it is closed, but there really is no sound basis for that assumption. We don’t know if the universe is finite in size, mass, energy or time. I believe that, if the universe is infinite in any dimension, then it may be either open or closed; the term “indeterminate” comes to mind.

Suppose just for a moment that BB is more or less valid, but time is infinite. In that case, perhaps the processes that occurred shortly after the BB might have been just as complex as those we see now—but on a vastly shorter scale of time and distance. The processes we are familiar with may be inconceivably brief in the eyes of some extremely distant future generation of beings—maybe a google years from now. They might think of the age of galaxies as we think of the first googolth of a second after the beginning. If that is the case, then the universe is not winding down, but merely shifting gears—the number of gears in the transmission being infinite in both the past and the future.

[Addendum; a few minutes after the original post.] I suspect that the measure of entropy depends on the time scale of the observer. Let’s suppose the total entropy in the universe increases at a linear rate. In extremely general terms (a zillion meaning many orders of magnitude): If observer A lives a zillion times earlier than observer B, and A’s perception of time is a zillion times faster than observer B’s, then A will measure a zillion times more entropy in his universe than observer B’s estimate of how much entropy existed in A’s time. Therefore, the total entropy measured by A is equal to that measured by B.

I mentioned in another thread recently that some alleged “black holes” are consuming matter, which spirals inward in a disk, and spewing jets of anti-matter at roughly ½ c perpendicular to the disk. Anti-matter seems to act like ordinary matter in reverse time. From that, I propose Phil’s Second Rule of Anti-thermodynamics: In a closed anti-matter system, from the viewpoint of an ordinary-matter observer, entropy decreases. Therefore, if the universe is a closed system, consisting of ordinary matter and anti-matter in a dynamic equilibrium, then total entropy of the universe may fluctuate, but the long term total entropy of the universe tends toward a constant value.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 1 month ago #11174 by MarkVitrone
Replied by MarkVitrone on topic Reply from Mark Vitrone
I agree with u 100%. Thermodynamics are based upon assumptions that cannot be justified. Using earth-based examples, notice how a living body reorganizes heat energy. This alone is an antientropic event. Of all my university topics I was most unimpressed with thermodynamics in P-chem. There were many arguments and one class transfer because the professor and I could not see I2I. Mark

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 1 month ago #14489 by PhilJ
Replied by PhilJ on topic Reply from Philip Janes
Mark, you seem to be reading my words incorrectly. I did not contradict accepted thermodynamics principles. I merely pointed out that you had misstated the 2nd Rule by omitting the part in <b>bold type</b>. It is a common misconception that entropy increases in all systems; the rule applies only to closed (or isolated) systems.

Closed systems are extremely rare in nature and difficult to create artificially. To close a system, you must seal and insulate it so that neither matter nor energy may be exchanged with the outside. Even telemetry is an energy exchange, but one which tends to further increase the entropy inside the system because it is a net export of information, which is a form of disentropy.

Take for example, Biosphere 2. That was an attempt to prevent the accumulation of entropy inside a sealed enclosure by exchanging only energy and information with the outside. It was not intended to be a closed system; it received low-entropy solar energy and radiated high-entropy heat. (They also imported information from outside troubleshooters and from family and friends. I'm not sure, but they may have also imported electric power.) The experiment failed to achieve its primary objective because the concrete inside the enclosure absorbed moisture and emitted carbon dioxide; you might say the concrete ate up all the disentropy in the enclosure.

One unjustified assumption in cosmology is that the universe is a closed system. If someone has already made up his mind that the universe is running down, it is conveniently obvious to him that the universe is a closed system. Therefore the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics validates his preconceived notion. Note the circular logic.

For all I know, maybe the universe is running down. Maybe it is a closed system. I'm just saying it's not at all obvious, one way or the other. So let's be careful about our assumptions.

If, as BB suggests, space is endlessly expanding at the speed of light, that opens up the system by giving it infinite space into which it may dump its entropy.

If space is infinite but static, with a homogeneous distribution of matter (on the largest imaginable scale), then it would seem to be a closed system. For the 2nd Rule of Thermodynamics to apply to a whole closed universe, entropy must increase. By proposing my 2nd Rule of Anti-thermodynamics, I have offered a mechanism by which entropy accumulation in backward time in anti-matter portions of the universe may balance the entropy accumulation in foreward time in our part of the universe.

Conventional thinking is that there are no large regions of anti-matter. My theory is still pretty far fetched; but the recently discovered positron-rich fountain at the center of our own galaxy may be the "smoking gun" telling us anti-matter is not as uncommon as we thought.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 1 month ago #14492 by cosmicsurfer
Replied by cosmicsurfer on topic Reply from John Rickey
I would also have to agree with PhilJ that you hit the nail exactly on the head in your describing a balanced universe whereby forward and reverse time waves are in equilibrium. If you look at one of my recent posts under "Antigravity Research" regarding the latest information on structure of protons in HERA collider experiments you will see a remarkable balance between the quarks and antiquarks that are attached by gluonic light fields as they stream from the collision with electrons (pretty much blows away existing model of proton). I also agree with Mark that the universe is antientropic and at micro and macro levels it is very evident that energy is "self organizing" around forward and reverse time waves.

John

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 1 month ago #12635 by GD
Replied by GD on topic Reply from
I would appreciate your comments on the following statement:

"Since the microscopic physical laws had always been thought to be invariant under time reversal, this discovery opens up a very wide range of profound questions. Professor Cronin will go into some of these questions in greater detail. I will mention two. Can this effect be used to decrease the entropy of an isolated system? We look out from the earth and see a highly ordered universe. With entropy always increasing how can this be? Is CP violation an
effect that can be used, in effect, to wind up the universe? The answers to these questions appear to be no.(25)"


Taken from:

nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1980/fitch-lecture.pdf

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 1 month ago #12636 by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
The second law applies to heat and heat is not energy. Thats where all the confusion comes from. By assuming heat is energy you get it wrong every time.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.358 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum