Deterministic?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />Detail is needed in the fact that an infinite deterministic universe would seem to be completely chaotic on all scales, since infinite materials would have infinite effects on infinite scales.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Suppose that the universe started with such an "infinite chaos" condition. Here and there, physical entities on all scales would experience low-velocity collisions and accrete into larger bodies. We see that happening for atoms, molecules, planets, stars, and even galaxies. Is it not inevitable then that some non-chaos will emerge from total chaos?

In MM, the net entropy (disorder) of the universe is zero. But that is an average over everything at all scales, all time, and all space. The local entropy can have any degree of order or disorder. But at our scale, electromagnetic forces tend to increase entropy, while gravitational forces tend to decrease it.

I suggest that your infinite entropy starting universe would soon asymptotically approach a zero-net entropy universe as entities assemble and merge on all scales, eventually in equal numbers with entities breaking up or disintegrating into smaller bits. -|Tom|-

If gravity reduces entrophy (other than in models) and the source of entrophy (2nd law of thermodynamics) do we have a conflict since it is said entrophy always increases? Does gravity defy the 2nd law?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />If gravity reduces entropy (other than in models) and the source of entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics) do we have a conflict since it is said entropy always increases? Does gravity defy the 2nd law?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes. Electromagnetic forces always increase entropy, and gravitational forces always decrease it. All infinite universe models, including MM, must conserve entropy, or else the universe would be evolving instead of just changing. Specifically, the 2nd law has the universe running down. So if the universe is infinite, we can be certain that the 2nd law is incomplete, just as the law of gravitation was found to be incomplete. -|Tom|-

Why is conserving entrophy a must do thing? And for that matter how does the entrophy of the atom topic fit into all this?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Why is conserving entropy a must do thing?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Entropy is not conserved in the Big Bang. But increasing entropy (disorder) means the BB universe is flying apart, so one day there will be little left except empty space.

If the universe is infinitely old, then entropy must be conserved. If net entropy is really increasing progressively, then after an infinite time entropy would now be infinite.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And for that matter how does the entropy of the atom topic fit into all this?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Atoms are bound by electromagnetic and related forces (strong and weak nuclear). For those forces, entropy always increases unless work is done. But for gravity (unimportant in atoms), the opposite is true. Gravity normally operates to create order out of chaos (decreasing entropy), and work must be done (as in a supernova explosion) to reverse that trend. -|Tom|-

So then, the older the atom the more entrophy it has? Or the hotter it is the more entrophy? I'm lost here as to how any of the models use entrophy effectively. Is entrophy a force or what? The BB model has not addressed this detail-has it?