Oh, I should add that such is, indeed, what some cosmologists foresee as the final state of the universe. That is, dead. All stars will ultimately evolve into either white or brown dwarfs (and that would be most stars) while very large stars will end up as black holes and eventually collapse upon themselves. The nuclear fusion energy which powers stars while eventually be completely expended and the star will end up as a very dense dwarf, with a mass of a couple of tons per spoonful of its matter.

That, my friend, is the cosmologists' view of the final end. A cold, dead universe. But that, they predict, is billions and billions of years down the road.

Dave

To be honest, no-one knows whether the universe is an open or closed system

Calculating the entropy of a complex system is a non-trivial exercise - and it is the result of this calculation which (AT A MACROSCOPIC LEVEL) shows the randomness distributing itself through the system.

Also, note that the 2nd Law is just like the Law of Gravity. It applies to lots of situations, we don't know any where it doesn't apply, but it is an experimental result that can be changed if it doesn't match reality.

/Bevin

The universe, according the General Relativity, is not infinite. (God is infinite, which is why I sometimes say God 'contains' the universe... and possibly any number of other universes too.) Space-time only exists where there is matter-energy, so under the Big Bang model the universe started tiny and is still expanding. There are a number of models that predict that the universe will (a) keep on expanding, (b) reach some sort of steady state or (c) begin contracting again and end up in a 'Big Crunch'.

Light energy is quite a 'high' form of energy. Its energy can't be destroyed, but the light, for example, can be absorbed by chlorophyl in a plant during photosynthesis, turning the light energy into chemical energy as glucose. That glucose can become kinetic energy in the muscles of the person who eats the plant, and be converted into the kinetic energy of a bicycle, for example. When the person puts on the brakes, the kinetic energy is converted into heat energy as the brake pads rub on the rims. Heat energy is the 'lowest' form of energy, and all energy tends toward it. Heat energy itself can be used to do work, of course, but in the process it produces even more heat energy.

The laws of thermodynamics state that none of the energy transformations in the sequence above can be 100% efficient. That is, some energy is always lost at each step. (In this case, 'lost' means lost as waste heat energy: no energy is destroyed, it just can't all be used for useful work.) If 100% efficient energy transformations were possible we could build perpetual motion machines.

But although the *net* entropy is always increasing, there can certainly be local decreases in entropy - that is, increases in order. What is the building of a skyscraper or a computer if not an increase in local order. More energy is wasted in building such a thing than is 'stored' in the final product, so net entropy increases, but complex products are certainly *not* prohibited by the Second Law.

Certainly, according to some models. Or, there may be other forms of matter/anti-matter. Or, the boundaries of the universe may be independent of matter or energy. As for the existence of space-time independent of energy-matter, and the nature of the boundaries of the universe, those are, indeed, interesting questions for the cosmologists!



Within a global system. I submit that the universe is not a global system for purposes of thermodynamics. I believe the evidence will support that position. That would be an interesting thread on its own. Hmmm. Is the universe a global system or a closed system for purposes of thermodynamics? Question two (related to one): can evidence be shown for interdependence of units within the universe which are otherwise distant from each other to an extent outside the magnetic and gravitional field lines?

Maybe it would be good to start that thread.

The "D." stands for David, David. A very good name, as you know!

Thanks for your answers. I must do more scientfic reading. I have read that Gary Zukov has written a good book called The Dancing Li Lu Master. You couldn't tell it was about physics from the title!

The reason i suggested black hole may some time predominate is because we have a massive (if the word applies) one at the center of our milky-way. I assume eventually the entire galaxy will end up sucked into it, including the brown dwarfs.

Cheers

Interesting the end of the universe for evolutionists is darkness and death. And for creationists it is light and life.

OK... back to the regularly scheduled programming.

A new idea to me. You explained it so well that it looks like it should be a commonplace idea: heat, the lowest form of energy.

D.(avid)Allan

Oh, I didn't comment earlier. I don't know that I would agree about heat being the LOWEST form of energy, but it certainly is way towards the low end (long-wave) of the electromagnetic spectrum. Would have to review that. Been a few years.

Not necessarily.

The end of the universe for atheist evolutionists could be a black hole that explodes - producing another Big Bang and another universe. For theists - both evolutionists and recent-creationists, it could be that God slowly sweeps around the universe, resetting it one galaxy at a time. Or maybe God is going to try a different set of physical laws next time, and create another universe that we can move to.

The laws of thermodynamics, like Newton's Laws of Motion, are approximations that work pretty well at the human scale, but which don't work at either the subatomic or the enormous scale.

Consider, for example, 10 atoms bouncing around in an otherwise empty box. There motion is effectively random, and so there is about 1 chance in 1024 that all 10 of them will be in the same end of the box at the same time - and yet, if you looked at it, you would swear that was a more ordered state than some other possible configurations.

One of the weird results in physics is that, at the tiny level, every interaction we know can go either way - there is no sense of 'forward' in time at this level - and hence the Second Law can't apply because we can't decide which direction is 'the future'.

The 'increasing randomness' idea is a probabilistic argument - which is another reason why it can't be used as rule out the initial formation of self-replicating molecules, nor the mutate/select/replicate mechanism that could cause these to become more complex.

Bravus uses the creation of a computer.

My personal preference for an example is "Sorry Mom, the Second Law of Thermodynamics means I can't clean my room, because that would be an increase in its information content".

/Bevin

Yes, I agree.

The additional point I would make here is that the Second Law shows that the universe is not eternal. A lot of atheists, particularly the Marxists, teach that the universe is eternal, which is how they avoid the question of how the universe began. They simply say God is not necessary because the universe never had a beginning and that it will never end.