The Universe and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

[David Koot]

Not sure which forum is appropriate to start this topic, but will do so here, I guess. This thread addresses crossover issues of astrophysics and general principles of thermodynamics. I would like to open up for discussion the following two questions:

1) Is the universe a global system for purposes of the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

2) 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? I am referring, for example, to galaxies and galactic clusters. May a case be made for the exchange of energy between otherwise distant galaxies? If so, what energy, and with what measurable effect?

Dave

[Bravus]

I'm not quite sure what the term 'global system' means in thermodynamic terms (I'm a little rusty). Does it mean the same as closed system, or something different? What does it mean about the nature of the system in relation to net energy balance?

On the second question, I'd have to go with 'We don't know, but probably not'. That is, I can't rule it out, but it seems likely that only the four forces act at a distance, and gravity is by far the one that acts at the greatest distance. Of course, the fact that we can see the stars means some energy has been transferred to here from there...

[David Koot]

Sorry, my shorthand. Closed system, complex system, any type of system. Is it a 'system'? That is the bottom-line question. If it is a system, then there would be issues such as you mention, in relation to net energy balance.

So, to rephrase the question, specifically for purposes of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, is the universe a 'system' of any kind? If so, what is the nature of energy interdependence?

As for starlight, from my recollection, that probably would not have any significant thermodynamic effect on distant galaxies. There needs to be something more than that, for purposes of calculations under the 2nd Law.

[David Koot]

Oh, one more detail, if you please. If there is a claim of energy interdependence, then what is the equation of state, or can you provide a weblink where that is referenced?

[Amelia]

ACK!!!! {backing away quickly from all the math and science talk}

[Bravus]

/me hugs Amelia on her way out, then dons his hip-waders

What's the alternative to treating the universe as a system? Because, of course, 'system' is not an innate feature of something, but a way for us to think about it. The 'systems' of the human body are inextricably interwoven, and we could actually look at the body in quite different ways (for example as a symbiotic colony)... but thinking about systems makes it simpler for us. So I don't think there's a definitive truth about whether the universe is or is not a system, there's just discussion of whether thinking about it as a system is useful, and if so, what kind of system.

I can see the argument you're building toward here: that claims about local order and organisation (specifically that required to allow living organisms) being thermodynamically balanced out by increased order elsewhere in the universe are not sustainable. I think that's probably an argument that can be made, but that discussions about the systematicity or otherwise of the universe aren't going to help to make it. Neither does its alternative - that local organisation *is* thermodynamically allowable based on broader disorganisation - require some mysterious mode of transmission of energy between distant star systems. The whole point is that star systems are organised too... it's the entropy of the local 'empty space' (which is really far from empty) around a galaxy and solar system that is thermodynamically interesting in the context of that discussion.

[bevin]

Actually it doesn't require non-obvious energy transformations to distant stars.

The sun and the moon are the two obvious sources for energy on earth, the third being the internal heat of the earth. All three are visibly sources of energy - heat in the sunshine, tides, and volcanoes/subterranean-heat being the obvious proofs

So energy is clearly coming into the system. Less obvious, but equally true, is that energy leaves the system - you can see the Earth from space hence it is emitting light, and with an infra-red camera hence it is emitting heat.

The surface of the Earth is clearly, therefore, not a closed system. This argument can be applied to any pond, and hence no ponds are not closed systems.

Hence the 2nd Law does not apply to a pond, or to the whole ecosystem on the surface of the Earth.

You can make it apply to a closed box by constructing basically a thermos-flask, but if you put a soup in there, it is STILL possible to evolve cells in the flask without violating the 2nd Law because the 2nd Law is about entropy, and it is possible that the cells represent a state closer to the final outcome than the initial soup.

Forget arguing about life - who believes the 2nd Law forbids O2 and H combining to form H2O in a closed system? Nobody who knows anything. Similarly the self-replicated molecules may also actually represent step in the right direction for the system.

/Bevin

[David Koot]

So I don't think there's a definitive truth about whether the universe is or is not a system, there's just discussion of whether thinking about it as a system is useful, and if so, what kind of system. I can see the argument you're building toward here: that claims about local order and organisation (specifically that required to allow living organisms) being thermodynamically balanced out by increased order elsewhere in the universe are not sustainable.

[Bravus]

OK, that's not what I said, but let's posit all that for the sake of the discussion.

[David Koot]

OK, that's not what I said,

Actually, I quoted from one of your posts on the '2nd law . . ." thread in the Origins forum. But, having addressed and disposed of the fallacy of imagining the universe as a 'system' for purposes of the second law, let us go on down the scale.

First, for purposes of clarification, we should not forget that the 2nd law was enunciated as the result of observations of a steam engine. Who was the fellow? A Dutchman, as I recall? We are dealing here, not with steam engines, but with solar systems and galaxies. Different ballgame, I would say.

[Bravus]

Hmmm... OK, fair enough. If you check the other thread you'll notice that I now seem to be in complete agreement with John317 in relation to the 2nd Law. Maybe we can reach the same outcome here?

I have nothing to prove in relation to the Second Law. I can bring lots of scientific evidence that it doesn't forbid evolution... and without going to galactic scales to do so. I've also already made the point that treating the Second Law in isolation from the other laws is misleading.

[David Koot]

Hmmm... OK, fair enough. If you check the other thread you'll notice that I now seem to be in complete agreement with John317 in relation to the 2nd Law. Maybe we can reach the same outcome here?

[Bravus]

I don't think I can be more explicit than I've already been in saying that the 'system/not a system' question is one of definition, not one of fact. By all means define the universe as 'not a system' if you wish... that's of no moment to me.

[David Koot]

I don't think I can be more explicit than I've already been in saying that the 'system/not a system' question is one of definition, not one of fact. By all means define the universe as 'not a system' if you wish... that's of no moment to me.

The word 'system' is commonly used by astronomers. The word, as a convention, has a recognized meaning within the industry. That convention is based on characteristics which comprise what they call a 'system,' as in 'solar system.' Chracteristics of the solar system would include interrelatedness based on the sun's gravity, for example. There is no energy 'exchange,' since the sun receives nothing from its planets. At any rate, those types of characteristics are what I am referring to, but not on a planetary level. Set the word aside, if you wish. Let's look at the facts underlying the convention.

So, then, once again, is there any claim of energy interdependence or energy transfer on an extra-galactic level, beyond the nominal impact of distant starlight? I cannot think of any, but I am open if someone can point it out.

[Bravus]

I'm 100% absolutely happy to let that particular strawman - 'spooky action at a distance' - lie where he fell. He's certainly not a troop either bevin or I has deployed at any point in the discussion.

Accounting for local increases in organisation/decreases in entropy on the surface of the earth, which is the phenomenon of interest, absolutely does not require energy or force interchange, or even information interchange, between distant galaxies.

[David Koot]

Ahh, I see. You are referring once again to the issue of evolution. Very well. In that case, I suggest that in the future, it would not be productive to refer 'global entropy of the universe' or 'overall entropy of the universe.' Either you or Bevin, or both of you, have used those terms in the past.

But, once again, evolution was not my focus on this thread. I am still interested in thoughts anyone may have in regard to the core question. Any ideas about the nature of the universe? Is it in any sense a 'system'? Is there any interdependency or interrelatedness on an extra-galactic level?

Dave

[GodsOath]

OHhhhhhhhKaaayyyyy I'm a 85% confused and the other 15% has a very tiny slight glimmer of kinda understanding.

The thread seemed to go around and around which made it seem like a rhetorical question. So here is my tryout. Please DO note that these are merely thoughts I HAVE no proof whatsoever merely imaginings of someone that is eating cookies and milk at 12:42am. With that said, here I go.

1.Why should we label it as a "system"? Why not grouping, family, cluster, friends, warriors, enemies? Aren't we limiting ourselved by calling it a system? One example is like the english grammar rules. SOMEONE had to go and mess with the grammar and give it limits, rules and regulations. Even writing a song has rules. And the sooo called creativity of poetry is filled with rules and people that want to fit into those rules work within those limits.

2. Have you considered that what We think as the Universe is maybe another dimension entirely and that maybe we can't really see these exchanges of energy because We just don't have the right technology or our minds are not capable to see? I guess one example would be that spiritual things are spiritually discerned. If we can apply it (not the spiritual part but the other something that we might be missing) to the universe how can we EVEN really have as fact anything that we haven't really touched ourselves. Seems like everything is just mere speculations.

3. As for interdependency or interrlatedness on an extra-galactic level. Remember how Jesus kept on using the parables for the masses because that is the only way that they could understand and relate? What if the universe showed itself in what we were capable of comprehending like coming down to our level and if everything is a great circle of life in earth then why shouldn't what happens 200 light years away from here not affect us. Meteor showers from space come into earth so something from space affected our world. I hope I'm making sense. Lol

Good night and could you please tell me what my grade is? :-)

[Amelia]

Ya want to know what I get out of all of the above? Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

[GodsOath]

THANK YOU AMELIA! You made my day with your comment.