Entropy, Energy and The Big Bang

I wonder if before the big bang our universe is in equilibrium....

The big bang is the defining moment of origin of our universe; therefore prior to this our universe did not exist. So difficult to say "before the big bang our universe in equilibrium."

Will our universe return to its equilibrium state where the everything is dead

I would dispute the use of the word "return" in the phrase "return to its equilibrium state" as that implies the prior to big bang conditions were "where everything is dead..."

Your idea of heat death is congruent with what I remember of this from my long ago college...

milo

Are you certain that 'the entropy of the universe is decreasing all the time???'

If you believe it is decreasing all the time, do you believe the universe is an open system, or a closed system?

i cannot provide the proof that entropy is decreasing all the time. But i am pretty sure that entropy is decreasing most of the time unless at some where in the universe energy is created or transferred into our universe.

From an article i read before, the theory of 'universe is always expanding' is better accepted by scientist community compared to that our universe is static. So i will say that our universe is an expanding closed system.

wow, great post emc c - thanks for enlightening us!

dave

to emc c

I have trouble with the concept of order/disorder.

If the Universe heads to a state of increased entropy (due to a natural decay to disorder) - then every atom (or other indivisible particle of matter yet to be discovered) must, in terms of energy, heat, temperature and pressure, be equally dispersed and in perfect balance with each other particle - then surely this final state must in fact be a highly ordered perfect structure...

...maybe...

It may be easier if you think of entropy as describing the 'unavailability to do work' of a systems energy.

As the randomness and disorder increase, the energy is less avaialable (being less organized) to do work. So over time disorder, randomness or the unavailability of a systems energy to do work, increase, so entropy increases.

This applies only to a closed system in which the observation is from a perspective in which causality, antecedence, and contiguity are valid. IMHO.

I agree with your question. As I learned, entropy is basically unuasable work in a CLOSED system.

These are good and thought provoking answers all.

I am reminded of the question posed to a student at the U. of Washington; Is Hell endothermic, or exothermic?

First we need to know how the Mass of Hell is changing in Time So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell, and the rate at which they are leaving. I think we can safely assume that once a soul gets into Hell, it will not leave. As for how many souls are enteringHell, lets look at the different religions that state if you are not a member of thier religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions, and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls will go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now we look and the change in volume in Hell because Boyles Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure to remain constant, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionatly as souls are added. This gives 2 possibilities: 1) If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls are entering then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase untill all Hell breaks loose. 2) If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls, then the temperature and pressure will drop untill Hell freezes over

So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you", and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell must be exothermic and has already frozen over. (see next post)

Continued:

The corollary of this theory is that since Hell is frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore extinct...... leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existance of a Devine Being, which explains why, last night Teresa kept shouting "Oh God, Oh my God"

The student who answered thus got an A+

All life survives by splicing itself into the arrow of entropy. Energy is input at a higher level and exhausted at a lower level and the difference is utilized to reverse the direction of the arrow of entropy locally. All useful endeavors are negentropic. It is a form of time travel on the arrow of entropy. By absorbing energy of a certain level and exhausting only part of it at a lower level we net useful energy that may be used to move matter from a lower state of organization to one of higher organization. It is a zero sum equation and all the energy diverted ultimately returns to the flow but by "pushing" ahead on the arrow of entropy we produce a temporary gain of utility, a diversion of the arrow of entropy for our own purpose, if you will. Plants use photosynthesis to do this with sunlight. We use plants to power our bodies and brains by sunlight indirectly via plants. Unless the phenomenon of life holds some yet undiscovered "magic" that makes this possible, then we must assume that it is basically a mechanical process that happens to work very well by the use of chemical machinery and that it is entirely feasible to mimic this mechanical process were we to get to be clever enough to do so. This is also the basis of knowledge. Knowledge is the preservation of a fixed or malleable state of organization of information. This requires the expenditure of energy. The energy to maintain this state of steady organization counter the arrow of entropy with an expenditure of energy that is in proportion to the merit of organization of the information. In order to accomplish it we must buy ahead, if you will, on the natural arrow of entropy in order to net a surplus of energy adequate in quantity to retain information in an organized state. Now you will never forget what I have written here. Your mind will never be normal again. I have spliced my idea into your etropic reality. Ha!

Many years ago, I struggled with the concept of the Second Law for quite some time, and ultimately came up with a mental construct, not meant to be scientifically rigorous, but meant as a philosophical construct to help me get my head around the concept. The Second Law states:

"The entropy of a closed system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium." (This is a slightly edited version of the Law as presented in Wikipedia).

There are three concepts that must be defined in order to comprehend this concept. The first is, of course, "closed system", which is generally taken to mean a system with well-defined boundaries across which there is no mass or energy transfer, in or out of the system. Entropy is defined in a number of ways, but essentially has the units of energy, so I like the idea of defining it as "energy not available to the system". "Equilibrium" can be understood as that state at which no further changes can be detected. That does not mean that processes within the system stop; it means merely that, on average, for every change of state of an element within the system, there is an equal and opposite change of state for some other element in the system (i.e., one molocule gets hotter by stealing energy from another, which then gets cooler in response).

Now, a key aspect of all of this has to do with observation. If one begins with a concept that everything that can be detected is the result of some interaction between components of a system (i.e., everything that can be detected is a record of some previous process or event), and that it takes some of the energy involved in the process or event to create a detectable record, then one can think of entropy as the energy required to create the detectable record. Now we redefine "equilibrium" as that state at which no new records can be detected. Note, we do not "measure" entropy directly, but rather infer it from the difference between what we can actually detect through a change of state, and what an analysis of the "ideal" energy is calculated to be.

Note that I have not had to call on some supreme Intelligent Designer or any concept of "order" or "disorder" to reach this point. The only time I find it difficult to reconcile the concept with conventional usage is when the term "entropy" is applied to information theory, but then I also disagree with conventional definitions of "noise" (I like to define noise as information within the system that is of no interest to us- all noise- even white noise, or Gaussian noise- is a signal of some origin. It gets classified as noise because we can not be bothered with, or don't have the capabilities to track down the sources).

As to how it relates to the big bang and the ultimate fate of the Universe, I think the jury is still out on those concepts. I have serious problems with the current Big Bang theory (chief among them being the time line- I think the Universe must be much, much older than 13.9 billion years- and, a recently as 200 years ago, most people who thought about it thought the universe was only 5000 years old- quite rapid aging, in my opinion...)

HA GOOD OPENER.....it could close when the universe does.

people on this planet have been tossing around thermoès since they cooled enough to stand.the hinduès have always been interested in ashes.

some say a similairity to evaporation , corolates, i have found nothing in geology or astronomy thet says -everything we research is in a frame of past-particles.

in the contemplation of SPACE......volume?

two exagerations there....and everything between...solid or transparent. i can measure an empty room,or the outter walls that do not let me know the inside, though this is functional mechanics, there is still transparency in both.

but according to science if i do not measure it...if there is a need to...or not, i do not know...so experience might be called quantized intelligence, and our simple 4 math functions work

it seems like the steps in the scientific method....keep us to take part at the verification level.

i can appreciate yet hope for a better interpretation to...THE JURY IS STILL OUT

...this bothers me from the hold the so called legal proffession has on mankind.

yet the laws of physics allow us to understand the guidelines of limitation.

our building code is a left over of manès recorded analysis of failures and the hope to prevent them.....and an intelligent arguement, is often based on what we feel to be hopeful facts,

this discussion itself could be a hidden discovery in entropy

one point of the big bang.....we are too explosive to the bang

too much spell bound by the fire-cracker world.

i hope to relate here again.

Thanks a lot for all the comments. i really appreciate them because now i get a greater understanding of what entropy and 2nd law of thermo are about.

thanks emc c for correcting me that entropy of the universe is always increasing and not decreasing. I had mistaken that entropy of heat is always decreasing for the entropy of universe is decreasing. the heat dead is also a very interesting theory of how the universe will end.

And Tippycanoe's theory of hell is really a good example.

Sorry. I think Tippycanoe's explanation stinks. It's entertaining @ best but full of exceptions, etc. At any rate- no one mentioned the Mayan model of cosmology. Their records & models explaining our present state & projections of future conditions- both social & environmental have borne heavy scrutiny quite well. Read the studies by Dr. Jose Arguelles. Facinating. It's important that the Mayans recognize an entity of some sort as central to the machinations- I am sure enough personally to avail myself of the Christian model (a benevolent all knowing most powerful being) to accept the Mayan explanation as a viable mechanism driven by that powerful being. Thanks Carlos

"The choices you make might be mistakes but it's never too late to turn around." Johnny Lang- musician

Guest, I never meant my "explanation of hell" to be anything other than comic relief for a cosmic occurrence. The jury is still out, despite the Mayan model, which either has our system destroying itself, or turning the cosmic wheel around again somewhere around 2024- 2029 ( A.K.A. Kalpa) Check out our recent 'Bullet Burn' by an asteroid. There are more coming. Hummm.

Recent experimentation questions the idea of a closed system (ie; parallel universe's, instantaneous "communication" between split neutrons, and how about those neutrinos that "brake for nothing". Are they from 'Elsewhen'?

Mystics have given serious thought to these very questions, and oddly enough science is on the verge of proving some kind of cosmic intelligence. I realize I'm getting a little off topic here. But 'There are far stranger things than are dreamt of in your philosiphy Horatio'. Start with 'The Tao of Physics' (F. Kapra), The A.Bailey series published by the Lucis Trust, and you might be ready for the wierdness of Carlos Castenada.

Namaste'

"Namaste' "

Is it Kh'mer language that you wrote?

To Guest. It is a Hindu word that means; "If you are in that place in you where Light and Love and Compassion exist, And I am in that same place in me, then there is only one of us."

Carl

Hi skyer666,

Welcome to CR4. I am a student of cosmology (self taught and I learn here). I don't have anything to add about entropy. The Big Bang has been discussed many times. You can search for threads and you will find many including my "State of the Big Bang Theory" (parts 1 to 4).

"Big bang releases 4 type of fundamental energy- gravitation, electromagnetic and 2 types of nuclear energy which i am not very sure what they do."

I'm not sure the term 'releases' is proper for the 4 forces, but the BB had the effect of a colossal explosion, so it must have released a lot of kinetic energy. Do you agree?

There is a book by Fred Adams and Greg Laughlin called The Five ages of the Universe, where it all becomes cold and dark. This agrees with current theory.

regards,

S

It is very interesting that you characterize the Universe as being in an Entropic state. Of course, it must be! However, I have never read a description of the Big Bang as the "release" of the Four Fundamental Forces of Nature as Energy States. But, since those forces must be associated with Energy, it is not difficult for me to understand how you imagines it: that the Forces are Energy. Supposedly, by virtue of Symmetry, the Universe WAS in equilibrium, NOT before the Big Bang, but for the first 300,000 years after it. It is the breaking of this Symmetry that supposedly results in The Four Fundamental Forces. Both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics Models demand/require that there is NO state before the Big Bang. But, who really knows? Maybe the Universe consisted of pure Forces (Energy) before the Big Bang whose "release" resulted in the current breaking of Symmetry, the subsequent Four Fundamental Forces and eventually, the current Entropic state of the Universe.

An excellent source of discussion on this is Paul Davies' "Cosmic Jackpot," and Lee Smolin's "The Life of The Cosmos," and "The Trouble With Physics."

Eduardo: You wrote -- Supposedly, by virtue of Symmetry, the Universe WAS in equilibrium, NOT before the Big Bang, but for the first 300,000 years after it.--

I don't know of any prevalent scientific theory of the early universe that proposes this timeline... namely, that symmetry remained unbroken and the 4 fundamental forces did not exits for the first 300,000 years. Please provide a reference for this timeline if possible.

The suggested timelines with which I am familiar all suggest symmetry was broken less than a second after the big bang. For example, if grand unification is a part of our universe, then symmetry must have been broker prior to or during inflation (the argument is we would see magnetic monopoles if symetry were broken after inflation). Inflation is generally theorized to have taken place in a time period between 10¯³6 to 10‾³² seconds after the big bang.

At times less than a second post big bang, competing theories vary substancially. At times less than a second post big bang, and prior to the end of the inflationary epoch, various theories seem to be competing more for being proclaimed creative, rather than possible and probable.

After the inflationary period, significantly less speculation and greater certainty is suggested by the convergence of states proposed and timelines proposed by prevalent competing theories.

benbenben- Sorry, you are correct. Davies and others have symmetry being broken at 10^-36 sec. My mistake. eduardo

Yes, you are right. According to the 2nd Law of Thermo, the world will eventually stop spinning, and chaos will ensue...

Check out Production Bookkeeping Equations - these should be the foundation of every engineering degree, and often students are not exposed to this until Graduate coursework.

agreed on book keeping.....donèt or can;t do it-the clutter state.

ah but is that /revolution/ of spin not the producer of chaosè not of organized confusion

the tell tale might be a thourough investigation of our calender, why we holdsome months at 30 or 31 and whamm throw in an extra day to coook the books.

if the spin of particle radiation is a consideration, then it is most evident in atomic outcomes as water......somethin there in those two hydrogens at zero degrees c

now is thet chaos in theory...there must be an outside force to determine probability.

the probability of me baking cookies thet turn out is full of variables, slowly or through years of experience, master each variable and......tonight itès cookies and cream

Ah, finally something I can post on.

From skyer666:

"I wonder if before the big bang our universe is in equilibrium.... but after the big bang the energy released increase the entropy of our universe dramatically and break the equlibrium, And given enough time....very long time.... will our universe return to its equilibrium state where the everything is dead since the entropy of the universe is decreasing all the time???"

First of let me preface this with a little bit of information on a very similar discussion I am involved in on the advanced physics forums. This is a discussion of much debate among published and unpublished scholars alike. The discussion has gone from calm to members receiving bans. Some theories are even considered heresy.

You will only get this type of reaction from physicists when they are asked to explain something they don't understand.

There seems to be a lot of discussion about entropy, but I will try to discuss only one part of your post:

"will our universe return to its equilibrium state where the everything is dead since the entropy of the universe is decreasing all the time?"

Please keep in mind this is all theory and very little is verifiable by an experimental means available to us at this time.

There are a few schools of thought on this one. As stated above by emc_c the concept of "equilibrium" in the universe requires everything to have the same temperature. Now if we look at this concept we have to take into account two phenomena.

Photons and Black Holes.

To make this short Photons are only at rest at or very near absolute zero. For equilibrium to take effect even photons would need to stop. This means that the entire universe would need to reach or at least become very close to absolute zero.

Black holes when they reach very large sizes they have a very low temperature. The black whole will radiate when the temperature of the black hole is warmer then the black hole's surroundings. This is a few billion years in the future.

The nature of the black hole draws matter in which is affected by time dilation, so to the outside observer all matter in the black hole remains suspended just above the event horizon for an infinite amount of time.

Now it won't take an infinite amount of time for the universe to cool to a temperature below the temperature of the black hole. Once this point is reached the black hole emits matter and energy, possibly as something similar to the concept of a big bang.

Think of the entropy of the universe as a sin wave which never quite reaches 1, -1. It comes extremely close but never makes it.

I understand that this probably creates more questions then answers and theories like Hawking radiation dispute any validity of this theory, but any theory surrounding this topic including Hawking radiation have never been observed. So best of luck to you with this one.

If you are interested I would be glad to post a few relevant lectures, books and papers on the wide variety of theories.

"A mind that is stretched by a new experience can never go back to its old dimensions." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

[Edit]

From cwarner7_11:

"That does not mean that processes within the system stop; it means merely that, on average, for every change of state of an element within the system, there is an equal and opposite change of state for some other element in the system (i.e., one molocule gets hotter by stealing energy from another, which then gets cooler in response)."

From Physics for Dummies: (not meant as a jab, they are great books)

Gaining Thermal Equilibrium: "For example, if you and the swimming pool you're in are at the same temperature, no heat is flowing from you to it or from it to you."

Basically over time equilibrium ultimately sets in and all molecules have the same energy. In this case entropy has stopped.

From cwamer7_11:

"Now we redefine "equilibrium" as that state at which no new records can be detected. Note, we do not "measure" entropy directly, but rather infer it from the difference between what we can actually detect through a change of state, and what an analysis of the "ideal" energy is calculated to be."

You've contradicted yourself. According to your earlier quote the system does not stop and energy is still transferred between molecules. This transfer of energy changes the molecules state.

I do apologise in advance, but you cannot redefine words to fit your vision. This leaves you with a false understanding of the system. By what you have stated here, without the use of modern technology, the world would be observed as relatively flat. We know how this ended.

I must stop here, these forums are more civil then the physics forums. However I would like to note that because any individual has difficulty reconciling with a concept popularly accepted and backed by data and experiments does not give you the licence to adapt the system to fit your needs.

Hopefully reading what I have posted here you will understand the difference between what is publicly discussed about the BB and what is theorised yet unproven by physicists. The difference usually is two fold, one people adapt the theory to something they can understand and two the physicist in question, out of fear of professional suicide because of the opinions of his peers, will not tell you the entire theory.

From benbenben:

"The suggested timelines with which I am familiar all suggest symmetry was broken less than a second after the big bang. For example, if grand unification is a part of our universe, then symmetry must have been broker prior to or during inflation (the argument is we would see magnetic monopoles if symetry were broken after inflation). Inflation is generally theorized to have taken place in a time period between 10¯³6 to 10‾³² seconds after the big bang."

Leave it to benbenben. Strangely your post has no good answer ratings yet. Here you go.