"Wonders of the Universe": Entropy Always Increases

I saw a BBC science program called "Wonders of the Universe."

The host explained that the passage of time can be measured by the increase in entropy in the universe.

He went to a desert in Africa and built a sandcastle. He explained that the sand castle has low entropy, because there are only a few ways to rearrange the molecules and it still be a sandcastle.

A sandpile, on the other hand, has high entropy. There are many ways to rearrange the molecules of a sandpile and still have a sandpile.

Over time, as the wind blows, the low entropy object (the sandcastle) will have particles of sand blown off and the sand will reform somewhere as a high entropy object (a sandpile).

There is no way to reverse this process. Entropy always increases and one day, entropy will have reached the point where there is no light or heat anywhere in the universe and at that point it will no longer be possible to measure the passage of time.

Now it got me to thinking.

If entropy always increases, then going backwards in time, there was a point in time when the universe had very low entropy.

How did all the matter in the universe reach this low entropy state?

The scientist did not offer to answer this question, and perhaps it is because science has no answer to this question.

 

This is in a closed system.

Do you have proof of any kind that the Universe is a closed system?

 

The universe is, by definition, everything that exists.

How could it not be a closed system?

What is external to the universe?

 

Even if the universe is a closed system, entropy does not increase universally or uniformly.

 

The scientist on the program said entropy always increases.

He said a sandcastle could blow away and form another sandcastle a few yards away, but that was extremely unlikely so it will actually never happen.

And yet, we live in this giant sandcastle.

How did it get here?

 

The Universe may be infinite.

 

How does that solve the problem?

 

Entropy may decrease as long as the overall entropy increases.

Building a sand castle decreases the entropy of the sand, but you burn kj to power your body to make it.

 

Can you prove that it is everything that exists?

 

Right.

So how did this big sandcastle we see around us get here?

Where is the increase of entropy to balance it out?

 

Actually, that is not what I'm trying to prove. I'm trying to prove the opposite.

 

Since you cant prove the Universe is a closed system, then your whole premise is faulty.

 

Well, I guess you didn't listen.

I agree with you that the universe is not a closed system.

Given what we know about entropy, it couldn't be.

 

The scientist got it backwards. It is another proof that scientists are worthless charlatans.
The scientist was talking about entropy. It is another proof that scientists are worthless charlatans, scumbags who just want to extort money from the general public. Then they talk about closed systems, when they don’t have a clue what they are talking about.

It is simple and no entropy is needed. You have heard about Uranium. You have heard about radioactive decay. It is something we observe as a reality. U decays in nature or it works in Nuclear Plants or it blows as a bomb. Sooner or later it all will decayed, worked out or blown. No such a thing will be around anymore. It will be all gone; no Power Plants, no bombs. The improbability of getting electricity or of blowing the earth with a nuclear bomb has been increasing. The entropy of the nature around us has been increasing, getting higher, but not lower.

Scientists believe that U somehow somewhere once in while intakes radiation instead of producing it. No matter how much such a belief is an absurd, No matter how much it is in contradiction with the observed reality it is one of the main fields of scientific research you and the general public are lured to pay money for. Scientists base their research and theories on empirical evidence. Look, they say, new species have been appearing around us, thus it can go backwards somehow somewhere once in while and we need another $$$$ grant for research of traveling back in time. Look, they say, the earth is warming and it is your fault.

The 2nd law says that heat naturally flows from a hotter body to a colder body and never backwards (like U always decays). Heat flows from the sun to the earth, until the temperature of both sun and the earth becomes even. Then it flows from both sun and the earth to the colder cosmos. Then it flows from the colder cosmos to even more cold cosmos. Then it reaches the ABSOLUTE ZERO=-273 degrees of Kelvin. Then all molecular and atomic motion seizes to exist, - no more energy, no more material world, no more material universe, no more matter.

If you want to read more about the matter less entropy or any other dark matter or black holes involved you can read Kelvin himself : http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_a_universal_tendency.html
The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I do not see how I can put it in words. (Applause.) http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_colour_and_design.html

P.S. and stop talking about things you have no clue about:
1. open, closed or isolated systems( in reality all systems are open)
2.thermodynamical system (in reality you cannot identify or make one)
3.entropy (in reality you have never taken a triple integral)

PPS. If you want to be really smart, be who you are. It is very difficult. But it may be rewarding.

 

The current laws of physics fall apart in a singularity, which is what the original state of the universe looks like it was.

This asks the interesting question if the current laws of physics came into being AFTER the universe stopped being a singularity. Are these the laws of physics we have to have?

 

Entropy does not always increase. Entropy increases in closed systems but not uniformly. This means that localized areas in a closed system can have decreasing entropy so long as entropy overall in the system is increasing. The universe is massive pretty much beyond fathom. Even if entropy was increasing in the universe overall, we may never notice because our region of the universe still have lots of potential energy and decreasing entropy. For example, the Earth itself is located within a closed system (the universe) but is not in itself a closed system because of massive influx of energy that it receives from the sun. That in turn causes decreasing entropy on Earth.

In short, the scientist in the video dumbed down science for general consumption and you remain functionally ignorant as to how thermodynamics works.

 

That was all very nice until the end.

And then you acted like a typical atheist and insulted my intelligence.

Which is why I started the other thread to tell you that I am much smarter than you and every other atheist on this forum, and probably by quite a bit.

Your lack of intelligence is proven by your quick resort to the lowest sort of debate tactics.

 

Yet you say this:

Care to make up your mind?

 

Ignorance has nothing to do with intelligence. You don't know how thermodynamics works. By definition, that makes you ignorant.

Stop getting your information from TV science shows meant for mass consumption and open a physics text.

BTW not an atheist.

 

Well, I for one am not sure what thermodynamocs has to do with the idea that organization comes from chaos - and that in general - things should be getting less, not more organized.

The fact that you have said, "You don't understand thermodynamics," really doesn;t answer the question that was possed - which is how this all arrived?

I see a bunch of random speculation and even your own blather about the Sun in this system - but our Sun, and indeed the wider universe is all part of that system where we should see less and less organization and instead we see ... more.

Indeed, from the big bang, we get the rapid expansion of eneregy and tiny bits of stuff - that somehow becomes more and more complex? So tell me, using thermodynamics, how exactly does a jet of eneregy coalesce into an organized matter? One more organized and purposeful than the source of eneregy that created it?

Indeed, using thermodynamics - its a safe bet that the scientist dumbed nothing down - because the laws of thermodynamics have to deal with perpetual motion and eneregy - and this here universe, being a closed system, means the expenditure of eneregy will eventually exhaust the supply.

That is hardly the stuff or brain surgery. Nor indeed, does it contrdict what Blackie is saying.

The question is - where did this all come from?

Atheists like to present this outcome as if it is inevitable, but what we know of systems, probability, etc., indicates that this outcome is not probable.

Indeed, when the Big Bang exploded - its far more likely that it should have just radiated out in lost energy, no need to create mass whatsoever - and entrophy reigns ....

Yet we have this instead? Improbable and appreciated.

Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to call other people stupid or make assumptions about what they do and do not know?

BTW - there are closed systems. Think a car for example. If you cut the fuel line - the system is breached and the motion ofthe car ceases. Without an outside assist or repair - the car cannot function. I know there are closed systems, because we look for them to attack and exploit - very often quite successfully.

 

Some comments.

For starters, as someone above said, entropy increases if the system is closed. For instance, you can reduce entropy by building a sand castle.

A side note, for entropy to increase is a statistical concept for particles moving more or less randomly. Our cells for instance does not (only) work on a statistical basis, but is able to differentiate between different particles and put them where it wants it, decreasing entropy.

You've sort of invented the big bang theory here. This is one way to get to the conclusion of the big bang. It's not complete, since systems started with certain entropy still can undergo similar things, but it is a proof that at least the entropy concept does not disprove the big bang.

So the question: Where does it come from. Of course, we don't know. There are theories, but so many natural laws break down at this point that it would be irresponsible, and probably incorrect, to say anything at this level as truth. Scientists or others may have beliefs one way or another, and some of them might be thinking of ways to research it, but it's not science yet.

 

so you now have evidence that what many claim is based on ignorance.

the systems (examples) you gave are opposite .

ie.... red; higher entropy (as it would fade quicker), blue: low as it is still a sand pile

You must be a religious wingnut as apparently the neutral claim is representing that anyone who is honest is an atheist.

and then there is the moron aspect of not referencing the wind as added energy

bulll............ you added energy to tear down the pile, why cant i add energy and create the sand castle

Is it that morons like the bias and the honest (atheist of course, around here) are the only ones capable of honestly addressing evidence?

if you were thinking, you would not have written the OP

it hasnt, EVER!

how about; science is what makes monkeys out of religious wingnuts

 

Full Stop!

Everything after this in your post is based on this one line, and this one line shows that you are way too ignorant about entropy to even be commenting on it.

What does thermodynamics have to do with entropy?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics governs and describes entropy.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c4

Educate yourself about what entropy actually means, what a closed system is (here's a clue: the Earth is not one), and how an influx of energy affects entropy and then come back so we can have an actual educated debate instead of you quoting psuedoscience that you don't even understand.

 

Interestingly enough, there is more than one law of thermodynamics - perhaps you should referrence them all.

And yes, that portion is a key portion, because thermodynamics and the transfer of eneregy inside a closed system that is expanding at the edges (as far as we know) means that eneregy is becoming more diffuse.

So when everyone else is talking about the universe - and you start talking about the Earth? You are talking about a screw in a machine, when everyone else is talking about the machine. You are literally stuck on the proverbial tree in a forest.

So, full stop, when mass and energy are constant, the system is considered closed - even if the individual pieces within that system are not.

You may also want to ratchet down the conciet a bit.

Because I am pretty sure you would not appreciate it if people talked to you like, "Well, Newtonian Physics you f'ing moron!"

Do attempt to keep up with the thesis if you will.

 

I keep talking about Earth because this entire thread's argument is predicated on the fallacy that because the universe is a closed system, then life couldn't arise on Earth (a decrease in entropy) naturally. But this entire train of thought is false. The universe is so vast that even if it is a closed system (which no one has yet demonstrated), our region of the universe still have massive potential energy in the form of stars that we have decreasing entropy.

Order regularly arises from chaos on Earth. You need only go outside in a snow storm or look at frost on your window to see that.

Entropy is not uniform. Period.