2nd law of thermodynamcs <> Big Bang
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-04-2011, 02:19 PM
RE: 2nd law of thermodynamcs <> Big Bang
(25-04-2011 06:56 AM)helland Wrote:  I'd like to try help explain it if i can, but which part of the big bang theory is it you can't reconcile with the second law of thermodynamics?

If everything was in a stable singularity in the beginning, then that means that that point had really low entropy. I don't really understand how from that point planets can form since that would automatically means galaxies and planets would be a higher form of entropy. the "junk-level" of a planet is higher then that of the singularity.

In layman terms: I have a cup... I smack it on the ground. Now I have more cups... Do I?? Huh I can imagine some shards of the cup are still usable to drink from...


I just can't get my mind around that...

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2011, 04:31 PM
RE: 2nd law of thermodynamcs <> Big Bang
(25-04-2011 02:19 PM)The_observer Wrote:  If everything was in a stable singularity in the beginning, then that means that that point had really low entropy. I don't really understand how from that point planets can form since that would automatically means galaxies and planets would be a higher form of entropy. the "junk-level" of a planet is higher then that of the singularity.

In layman terms: I have a cup... I smack it on the ground. Now I have more cups... Do I?? Huh I can imagine some shards of the cup are still usable to drink from...


I just can't get my mind around that...

Helland hopefully knows more than I do, but as the universe expands it keeps shifting out of equilibrium. It's not that there's less entropy than at first, but as there is more room within the universe, there are spots of disorder and spots of order. The total area that is in disorder does increase, following the second law of thermodynamics, but as the total area increases as well, there is more room for order. Trying to put it into something more comprehensible(and hopefully not completely wrong), let's say that 50% of the universe is in disorder(and let's keep that constant for simplicity's sake). So that's 1/2, where one part of the universe is in order, and the other part is in disorder. But then the universe increases(let's say doubles in size), but the ratio is kept constant, so that universe is two parts disorder, and two parts order. So the order of the universe is able to increase with it's size, but the disorders also increases.

(25-04-2011 07:55 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I read an essay on this once in a book called "101 things you don't know about science and no one else does either." This book is a collection of essays across multiple sciences and one of them was of course on the Big Bang. It is hypothesized that it is possible for something to come from nothing and not violate the laws of nature as long as when a particle of matter arises a particle of antimatter arises as well (in doing so there is not net gain of matter or energy). The two particles would then cancel each other out in a burst of energy and it could have been this process happening constantly over some period of "time" that caused the Big Bang. There are obvious problems with this but hopefully the LHC will shed more light on it. The first problem is where is all the antimatter? The second problem is that there is assumed to have been some boundary around this "nothing" that acted like a balloon that "popped" creating the Big Bang. What was this boundary? Where is it now? It is an interesting concept and we are only beginning to explore it. So exciting!!!!

And people say the the universe is boring and empty without god...

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ashley.hunt60's post
26-04-2011, 07:10 AM
RE: 2nd law of thermodynamcs <> Big Bang
(25-04-2011 04:31 PM)ashley.hunt60 Wrote:  
(25-04-2011 02:19 PM)The_observer Wrote:  If everything was in a stable singularity in the beginning, then that means that that point had really low entropy. I don't really understand how from that point planets can form since that would automatically means galaxies and planets would be a higher form of entropy. the "junk-level" of a planet is higher then that of the singularity.

In layman terms: I have a cup... I smack it on the ground. Now I have more cups... Do I?? Huh I can imagine some shards of the cup are still usable to drink from...


I just can't get my mind around that...

Helland hopefully knows more than I do, but as the universe expands it keeps shifting out of equilibrium. It's not that there's less entropy than at first, but as there is more room within the universe, there are spots of disorder and spots of order. The total area that is in disorder does increase, following the second law of thermodynamics, but as the total area increases as well, there is more room for order. Trying to put it into something more comprehensible(and hopefully not completely wrong), let's say that 50% of the universe is in disorder(and let's keep that constant for simplicity's sake). So that's 1/2, where one part of the universe is in order, and the other part is in disorder. But then the universe increases(let's say doubles in size), but the ratio is kept constant, so that universe is two parts disorder, and two parts order. So the order of the universe is able to increase with it's size, but the disorders also increases.

(25-04-2011 07:55 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I read an essay on this once in a book called "101 things you don't know about science and no one else does either." This book is a collection of essays across multiple sciences and one of them was of course on the Big Bang. It is hypothesized that it is possible for something to come from nothing and not violate the laws of nature as long as when a particle of matter arises a particle of antimatter arises as well (in doing so there is not net gain of matter or energy). The two particles would then cancel each other out in a burst of energy and it could have been this process happening constantly over some period of "time" that caused the Big Bang. There are obvious problems with this but hopefully the LHC will shed more light on it. The first problem is where is all the antimatter? The second problem is that there is assumed to have been some boundary around this "nothing" that acted like a balloon that "popped" creating the Big Bang. What was this boundary? Where is it now? It is an interesting concept and we are only beginning to explore it. So exciting!!!!

And people say the the universe is boring and empty without god...

Some people say it is boring. I find it very exciting indeed.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2011, 07:50 AM
RE: 2nd law of thermodynamcs <> Big Bang
(26-04-2011 07:10 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Some people say it is boring. I find it very exciting indeed.

It's funny, when you think about it. The reality of nature is so much more crazier than a bunch of sheep headers could have ever convinced of. A magical wizard making a guy out of dirt? Try stars exploding, freeing massive amounts of various chemicals, which in turns makes its way to a planet, where they synthesize with each other, creating basic building blocks of life, that eventually leads to rudimentary cells, that after 4 billion years of life and death, struggling to make the next generation, make us. I mean, come on, which one is a little bit more exciting?

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ashley.hunt60's post
26-04-2011, 09:18 AM
 
RE: 2nd law of thermodynamcs <> Big Bang
Ashley.hunt60 gives a nice overview of the problem, so I’ll try to go through it in some detail. Smile

First I’ve got to mention that the laws of physics break down at the very first moment of the big bang, so I’ll start right afterwards, when we imagine a universe in equilibrium, where there were no variations in energy.
At one point cosmologists think there was a period of inflation, which basically is an enormous rate of expansion, so much faster there’s no comparison to the expansion today. At the end of this inflation period, there were some minute fluctuations in the rate of expansion itself, which created pockets of space that had expanded more than others, creating differences in densities from place to place. This density contrast then grows with time and eventually become big enough for the gravitational potential energy to take hold of the mass and collapse it into what we now call galaxies.
From this point, as the universe expand, the amount of mass needed for gravity to collapse has decreased, which is why we now have stars and not just supermassive black holes and bodies the size of galaxies.
This evolution is depicted quite nicely in this picture here that I sto... borrowed.
   

Because this description was pretty bad (in my opinion), I’ve flexed my paint skills to try explain a little better below. Tongue

   

This may have been a very sketchy way of explaining it, but if you want to know more I’d recommend the last couple of chapters of “Introduction to Cosmology” by Barbara Ryden and Leonard Susskind’s youtube lectures on Cosmology (I believe it’s lecture 6 or 7 he talks about this in particular, can’t remember). Both goes into quite a lot of details though (math included).

hmm.. can't seem to get the attachments working..
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like helland's post
26-04-2011, 02:55 PM
RE: 2nd law of thermodynamcs <> Big Bang
Thanks...
A good post
The stol... burrowed picture makes it a bit more comprehensible for me...

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2011, 12:05 PM
RE: 2nd law of thermodynamcs <> Big Bang
I'm a YEC, but I disagree that The Big Bang violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics because adding energy does not always increase entropy. This can be demonstrated in both chemistry and physics. It may seem like I would be shooting myself in the foot, but I'm not. There are better arguments to use against The Big Bang. I think the argument really comes from semantics and not the law itself. Those types of arguments should be avoided.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Spectre's post
02-05-2011, 05:22 PM
RE: 2nd law of thermodynamcs <> Big Bang
(25-04-2011 02:19 PM)The_observer Wrote:  If everything was in a stable singularity in the beginning, then that means that that point had really low entropy. I don't really understand how from that point planets can form since that would automatically means galaxies and planets would be a higher form of entropy. the "junk-level" of a planet is higher then that of the singularity.

In layman terms: I have a cup... I smack it on the ground. Now I have more cups... Do I?? Huh I can imagine some shards of the cup are still usable to drink from...


I just can't get my mind around that...

The way that I've used to grasp this that prior to the Big Bang, all matter was in the form of energy (as far as my understanding of physics goes, this could be true since atoms didn't form until a little while post-explosion). The overall entropy of the system can be maintained as the energy flows around. The explosion could therefor have come around from a moment with a large enough nonconformity. Then, similar to a Van de Graaf generator that has stored a large amount of energy and you disturb the overall layout of the electrons, you get a nice spark Cool

Of all the ideas put forth by science, it is the principle of Superposition that can undo any power of the gods. For the accumulation of smaller actions has the ability to create, destroy, and move the world.

"I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul." -W. E. Henley
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: