The entropy of systems

More
15 years 4 months ago #23743 by PhilJ
Replied by PhilJ on topic Reply from Philip Janes
GD: 23 Jun 2009 : 10:15:14 <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A self-organizing system is not in equilibrium since it uses energy to produce change.
If we think this is possible, then the contents of the universe are open to its environment, but the universe needs to be a closed system.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That last phrase is finitist propaganda. An infinite universe does not need to be closed. Nor does an expanding universe. Even the finitists know that space is expanding, yet they continue to claim the universe is a thermodynamically closed system. Isn't it obvious that our universe is receiving an input of new space from somewhere else? Does the new space bring more entropy with it? Or is it a heat sink with zero initial entropy?

In my Fractal Foam Model of Universes, smaller-scale universes export their entropy to the next higher-scale universe, but time inversion converts the output of entropy to an input of exergy (if I'm not abusing my new word). I won't go into the details of that in this discussion; after 29 pages on one line of thought, it's a bit late to take a new direction without starting a new thread. I have already started a thread on my Fractal Foam model, anyway.

Might all forces propagate at speed of gravity?

Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

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

More
15 years 4 months ago #23644 by GD
Replied by GD on topic Reply from
Hello PhilJ,

This is simple:
1) Self-organization of a system is related to the concept of broken symmetry.
2) Broken symmetry is related to irreversibility.
3) irreversibility is the result of a closed system.

Sorry PhilJ I have right. The propagandists are those, with their theories, shy away from reality...

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

More
15 years 4 months ago #22879 by PhilJ
Replied by PhilJ on topic Reply from Philip Janes
GD: 24 Jun 2009 : 11:45:33 <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This is simple:
1) Self-organization of a system is related to the concept of broken symmetry.
2) Broken symmetry is related to irreversibility.
3) irreversibility is the result of a closed system.

Sorry PhilJ I have right. The propagandists are those, with their theories, shy away from reality...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Those three assertions are hardly axiomatic, GD. I agree that broken symmetry is irreversible in a closed system, and it plays a role in self-organization. Some outside influences can reverse broken symmetries, but not all. Some outside influences can even <b>cause</b> broken symmetries which do not <b>want</b> to be broken. So the presence of a broken symmetry is no proof of a closed system.

What is a closed system, anyway? If it is completely, utterly and perfectly unconnected to anything else, then as far as anyone inside a closed system is concerned, nothing else exists. And as far as anyone on the outside is concerned, the inside doesn't exist, either. There can be no closed system within a greater universe and no greater universe outside a closed system. There can be at most one closed system, and if it exists, then it is the universe.

<hr noshade size="1">GD: 19 Jan 2008 : 00:52:57<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">2)
Light travels the same distance with time, therefore the universe must be a sphere. (it is not infinite for the same reason.)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">GD: 24 Feb 2008 : 19:05:29 <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If light travels at a finite speed, then our universe is NOT INFINITE.
the boundary condition is where light has not reached yet.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You assume that the Hubble sphere is the universe. What about the most distant objects that we see now, as they existed 10 billion years ago? Since that light was emitted, the expansion of space has moved its source to perhaps 50 billion light years away. Are you saying that the source no longer exists because it is outside our Hubble sphere?

If the universe is infinite, then every finite part of it, including our Hubble sphere, is infinitely smaller than the whole. If gravity propagates 20 billion times faster than light, then gravity's sphere of influence defines a sphere (Let's call it the PhilJ sphere unless you know another name for it.) 20 billion times wider than the Hubble sphere (assuming uniform expansion at that range). Even this PhilJ sphere is an infinitely small part of the infinite universe.

If the universe is everything that IS, then, to loosly quote Bill Clinton, "It depends on what the definition of IS is." What lies beyond the PhilJ sphere? Nothing that can affect us physically, unless there is something faster than gravity or something able to affect the past. I can think of one non-physical thing faster than gravity---my imagination! And to me, my imagination does exist, so my imagination is part of THE universe, if not part of the physical universe.

I can imagine an intelligent being, A, near the edge of my PhilJ sphere; I imagine that A is imagining me at the edge of its PhilJ sphere and, at the same time, A is imagining an intelligent being B at the opposite edge of A's PhilJ sphere. There is no gravity connection between me and B. Unless there is something faster than gravity, B does not exist to me, except in my imagination. If A exists in our physical universe, and B exists in A's physical universe, does B then exist in our physical universe?

If our physical universe is infinite, then we certainly can never know that it is finite; nor can we ever know that it is infinite. If we knew that the universe is a closed system, then we would know that it is finite. The question of whether an infinite universe is a closed system is indeterminate.

<hr noshade size="1">Changing the subject: Stoat (30 Nov 2006 : 04:53:11) commented that the half-live of the electron is infinite. On 29 Dec 2007, he opined that it is "billions and billions of years". I can verify those comments. According to the Particle Data Group , the mean life of an electron is 4.6 x 10^26 years, which is about 10^15 times the supposed age of the universe.


Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

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

More
15 years 4 months ago #23493 by GD
Replied by GD on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by PhilJ</i>
... There can be at most one closed system, and if it exists, then it is the universe...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hello PhilJ,

You seem to be agreeing with me on this...

What about the thermodynamic laws:

First Law: The amount of energy is constant (in the universe).
energy can neither be created or destroyed.

Second Law: Exergy decreases with time. (A system's ability to produce work decreases with time.)

1) According to you, how does a system such as the universe provide energy to produce work if it's energy content remains the same?

2) If the energy content of the universe is constant, is the universe finite or infinite ?

3) If the universe is an open system, does this mean energy can be added to universe? Does this break the first law ?

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

More
15 years 4 months ago #23494 by PhilJ
Replied by PhilJ on topic Reply from Philip Janes
I take exception to the word "law" in all of its physics applications. As long as you call your idea a theory or a model, you admit the possibility that it is not a perfect representation of reality. Calling it "law" virtually guarantees that you will someday be proven a liar.

GD: 24 Jun 2009 : 20:52:09 <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">First Law: The amount of energy is constant (in the universe).
energy can neither be created or destroyed.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The first law has been stated many ways, but don't they all limit its applicability to a <b>closed</b> thermodynamic system? You are either misstating the law or assuming that the universe is a closed thermodynamic system? This law needs to be updated to conserve mass-energy. The mass of stars is constantly being converted to energy, and in some cases (fusion of iron to heavier elements), energy is being converted to mass. As far as I know there is no closed thermodynamic system in existence. These laws were made to order for ideal systems that never existed in reality.

GD: 24 Jun 2009 : 20:52:09 <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Second Law: Exergy decreases with time. (A system's ability to produce work decreases with time.)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Again, you must specify "a closed system".

GD: 24 Jun 2009 : 20:52:09 <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">1) According to you, how does a system such as the universe provide energy to produce work if it's energy content remains the same?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">First, I make a distinction between <b>our</b> universe and a greater fractal universe. I do not speculate on whether the greater fractal universe is open or closed; that is like a googolplex to the googolplex power orders of magnitude beyond human understanding, so it must always be relegated to the realm of religion.

Our universe is all of physical reality between the scale of the ether foam and the scale of the cosmic foam. That is approximately 60 orders of magnitude---from the Planck length to the Hubble length. I place no arbitrary spacial or temporal boundaries on <b>our</b> universe.

<b>Our</b> universe receives energy and exergy from the next smaller-scale universe. Exactly how that occurs belongs in a discussion of my model.

GD: 24 Jun 2009 : 20:52:09 <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">2) If the energy content of the universe is constant, is the universe finite or infinite ?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't know if the energy content of <b>our</b> universe is constant, but I do believe <b>our</b> universe is infinite, both spacially and temporally, though this can never be proven. It is also an infinitessimally small part of a greater fractal universe.

GD: 24 Jun 2009 : 20:52:09 <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">3) If the universe is an open system, does this mean energy can be added to universe? Does this break the first law ?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If <b>our</b> universe is an open system, the first law is inapplicable. And yes, energy can be added to it. No, this does not break the first law because the first law is not applicable to an open system.


Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

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

More
15 years 4 months ago #22883 by GD
Replied by GD on topic Reply from
PhilJ,

Do you agree that the universe has been self-organizing from a simple system to a complex one?

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

Time to create page: 0.517 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum