Thermodynamics and Cosmology

[coldcreation]

.

 

 

 

That’s a great history lesson. You should have started with Svante Arrhenius who published “Lehrbuch der kosmischen Physik" (Textbook of cosmic physics) in 1903.

 

Yes, or even William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), “On a Universal Tendency in Nature to the Dissipation of Mechanical Energy” (1852). That the great thing about science: there is always a precursor.

 

 

He argued that the universe was eternal and thought the heat death was kept in check by nebula storing up heat from radiating stars and using it to form new stars. It is likely that MacMillan and Nernst were inspired by Arrhenius.

 

Very likely. In any case, it is evident that the notion of "heat-death" derives solely form the second law. And, that when other factors are considered along side, GR, QM and the others natural laws, that the heat death is untenable in the real world (no matter what the cosmology).

 

 

Or you could have gone as far back as William Rankine who, as early as 1852 speculated that, “the world, as now created, may possibly be provided within itself the means of reconcentrating its physical energies, and renewing its activity and life,”

 

Actually, both Helmholtz and Rankine both credited Thomson with the idea (1862).

 

 

 

Personally, I don’t think you can get rid of the 2nd law of thermodynamics now that entropy is successfully married to QM. Those two are stuck together in kind of an eternal true love kind of thing. I heard gravity is jealous of entropy and QM- but QM and gravity just don’t get along. I don’t see them ever getting together. Physicists keep trying to set them up (blind dates and what not) but, I just don’t see it happening.

 

 

“All tragedies are finished by death, All comedies are ended by marriage”

Byron a la estrofa 9, canto III, Don Juan.

 

 

 

Absolutely. The second law of thermodynamics is here to stay.

 

That is exactly what I reproach of the BBT. Not only is the second law violated as the Planks scale (time) is approached, but all the other physical laws as well, until they all break-down at a time removed from the BBT (t = 0).

 

So you see, though the so-called heat death (or cold death) can be avoided quite elegantly in steady state models, the problem is unavoidable in big bang cosmology: both at the beginning of the universe and at its end.

 

It was hoped that inflation would rid the standard model of thermodynamic problems (and the effort continues), but the speculative nature of inflation itself (with its false vacua or slow-rollover transition) leads one to believe that the band-aid is really just a piece of Scotch tape: nothing is absorbed.

 

 

 

Also, you mentioned cosmogony and as an aside - when I first joined hypography I thought your nick “coldcreation” was a reference to your study or belief in cosmogony. But, that’s neither here nor there.

 

 

Coldcreation is a generic designation based on a diametrically opposite antithesis to hot creation. (Kind of like "modest" being the opposite of arrogant, or pretentious). I wouldn't normally read too much into names.

 

 

 

 

CC

[modest]

.

 

That is exactly what I reproach of the BBT. Not only is the second law violated as the Planks scale (time) is approached, but all the other physical laws as well, until they all break-down at a time removed from the BBT (t = 0).

 

So you see, though the so-called heat death (or cold death) can be avoided quite elegantly in steady state models, the problem is unavoidable in big bang cosmology: both at the beginning of the universe and at its end.

CC

 

coldcreation -

 

I don’t see how starting the universe as cold vs. hot would be beneficial regarding entropy. The 2nd law says that heat will not transfer from a colder system to a hotter one. Galaxies today obviously have less entropy and more order than your early universe. They certainly have more useful energy. How did this reversal of entropy happen? Or, are you saying that the 2nd law is not true globally? I really do not understand what process you envision or what model you have to explain your stated beliefs. How does a cold, dead universe evolve over an infinite time scale into the universe we have today? Can you model that? Thermodynamically?

[coldcreation]

I don’t see how starting the universe as cold vs. hot would be beneficial regarding entropy.

 

 

Entropy, meaning evolution in Greek, was defined by Clausius (1865), but before getting beyond ourselves let us recollect his notable formulation: ‘The energy of the universe is constant. The entropy of the universe is increasing.’ In 1850 Clausius understood: [using current vocabulary we express Clausius’s statement as]:

 

‘No process is possible in which the only net effect is to transfer a system’s energy from a low temperature stable equilibrium state to a system in stable equilibrium state with a higher temperature.’

Indeed, entropy is the property that determines the direction of spontaneous change.

 

Innumerable experimental studies have demonstrated that there is a quantity that falls to zero as the absolute zero temperature is approached: corresponding to the degree of disorder or randomness of the universe called entropy. This knowledge is embodied in an enunciation of the type:

 

The entropy of all systems and of all states of a system is zero at absolute zero.

One can only conclude that the entropy of the very early universe was very close to zero. It could even be said that as time t tends to minus infinity, entropy tends to zero, along with temperature (say, of the CMB blackbody). So far the second law is still intact and operational.

 

Note, the problem associated with the standard model regarding entropy is non-existant, since the universe does not begin with a bang: a state of maximum entropy (a heat birth).

 

 

 

The 2nd law says that heat will not transfer from a colder system to a hotter one.

 

Precisely. There is no discrepancy here.

 

Note: The conclusion that all ground-energy states have the same temperature and that the value of this temperature is equal to zero, cannot be drawn as a consistent outcome of the first and second laws of thermodynamics. An additional fundamental principle is required: The third law of thermodynamics, sometimes called the Nernst heat theorem or principle (1906), in honor of the German physical chemist Walther Hermann Nernst.

 

 

 

Galaxies today obviously have less entropy and more order than your early universe.

 

As one approaches minus infinity, entropy tends to zero. Otherwise, entropy would not be a nondecreasing property of nature. So the very early universe (compared to now) is comparable to a quasi-equilibrium system (in its lowest possible ground energy state). The true stable-equilibrium state would be at infinity, i.e., it is unattainable. And so there has always been change.

 

The amount of entropy contained in or exhibited by galaxies (as opposed to a true vacuum) is an interesting subject. What is the source of your statement above.

 

 

They certainly have more useful energy. How did this reversal of entropy happen?

 

There is no reversal of entropy.

 

The entropy, S, of an isolated system (the universe) increases monotonically until it reaches its maximum value at thermodynamic equilibrium: which would be at an infinite time in the future, i.e., never.

 

Because of fluctuations and constant change, self-organization, diversification and innovation, along with the continuous increase of entropy in the infinite spatiotemporal universe continue to amplify or augment with time.

 

Or, are you saying that the 2nd law is not true globally?

 

Au contraire.

 

 

I really do not understand what process you envision or what model you have to explain your stated beliefs.

 

Any realistic world model must be based on a combination of GR, QM, thermodynamics and to some extent classical mechanics.

 

If any of those break-down somewhere (or sometime) along the way, that is a good sign that the theory does not represent the real world, this universe.

 

Perhaps by belief in the laws of physics, the natural laws, empirical evidence, is based on blind faith. But that is all I have to draw from.

 

How does a cold, dead universe evolve over an infinite time scale into the universe we have today?

 

There is no such thing as a dead universe.

 

 

Can you model that? Thermodynamically?

 

The bi-product of entropy constitutes the condensation process of material particles from the inexorable ground-energy inherent in the vacuum at all times t.

 

 

There’s a lot to chew there in one mouth-full.

 

I know.

 

In simple terms: Material creation is directly attached to entropy. And the increase of entropy with time implies the continuous creation of matter. Here even a thermodynamicist might object. It can, though, be modestly stated that if entropy reflects the degree of disorder of a system, or the randomness of a system, and if indeed the entropy of the universe was close to zero in the past (before subsystems were able to cough up the first particle), i.e., when the state of the universe was structurally, geometrically, topologically more organized, less chaotic, quasi-flat, near-equilibrium, then material creation and entropy go hand in hand.

 

 

 

CC

[kmarinas86]

When friction occurs, heat is generated.

When heat is generated, light escapes into space.

When light escapes into space, some light is not reabsorbed.

When some light is not reabsorbed, it cannot heat anything any more.

When it cannot heat anything any more, it is energy that cannot do work.

When it is energy that cannot do work, it contributes to entropy.

 

If the universe is eternally working:

• The universe must not approach global thermodynamic equilibrium. So...
  
• The universe must not approach mechanical equilibrium. So...
  
• The universe must be a fractal. So...
  
• The cosmological principle has to be wrong.
  

[modest]

 

In simple terms: Material creation is directly attached to entropy. And the increase of entropy with time implies the continuous creation of matter. Here even a thermodynamicist might object. It can, though, be modestly stated that if entropy reflects the degree of disorder of a system, or the randomness of a system, and if indeed the entropy of the universe was close to zero in the past (before subsystems were able to cough up the first particle), i.e., when the state of the universe was structurally, geometrically, topologically more organized, less chaotic, quasi-flat, near-equilibrium, then material creation and entropy go hand in hand.

 

CC

 

By your admission your young universe is near-equilibrium. The temperature, pressure, and density differences are small compared to today. Galaxy’s today have large temperature, pressure and density differences between stars and planets and empty space. Unless everything I’ve been taught about entropy is wrong, this spontaneous change from harmonized to sundry is by definition a contravention.

 

Also I see you've taken up Hoyle's spontaneous generation of matter now - so you are also violating the conservation laws.

[coldcreation]

By your admission your young universe is near-equilibrium. The temperature, pressure, and density differences are small compared to today. Galaxy’s today have large temperature, pressure and density differences between stars and planets and empty space. Unless everything I’ve been taught about entropy is wrong, this spontaneous change from harmonized to sundry is by definition a contravention.

 

The "young" universe is not a term I would use, since it implies and age. An infinite universe has no age. The terminology 'early universe' (compared with the present time) implies no age.

 

Yes, the early universe is a quasi-equilibrium vacuum state. The ground-state energy, or ZPE fluctuations are large in spatial extent but small in amplitude. What we have is a state of very low disorder, few random peaks in energy. The universe is fairly smooth and perturbation-free.

 

If this does not fit in with what you learned about entropy try this: consider a high-vacuum state (say, before we add ZPE and ZPF). The 3-dimensional surface is virtually flat, Euclidean, and entropy (disorder, randomness, etc.) is zero (or very nearly so). Now add the irreducible ground-energy, ZPE with its irreducible zero-point fluctuations. Now we have a state, one that represents a real vacuum, within which there is a minimum amount of interaction between constituents, symmetry is progressively and spontaneously 'breaking.' Entropy is small.

 

As that state, the high-vacuum with its ZPE and ZPF changes, entropy, S, does not decrease, sometimes it will stay the same, but generally the entropy of the system will increase with time.

 

And so, the concept described herein does not violate the second law. On the contrary.

 

 

 

Also I see you've taken up Hoyle's spontaneous generation of matter now - so you are also violating the conservation laws.

 

The conservation laws are not violated. They are used, along with the other physical laws, to describe how the evolution of the universe has transpired.

 

The process described above has nothing to do with the QSSC model for material creation, with its C-field: a type of scalar field that would create new matter and carry negative pressure that would drive the expansion of the universe, its pouring out from galactic nuclei, etc.

 

One remarkable feature of quasi-steady state cosmology is indeed the perpetual creation of matter. MacMillan and Nernst had postulated the creation of matter from some form of radiation. The C-field concept of QSSC seems to reflect this type of creation as well, despite some differences. This avoids the tenuous problem of explaining how matter would be created out-of-nothing, and at the same time the law of energy conservation (first law of thermodynamics) is not violated, contrary to what is written above.

 

Anyway, as Hoyle pointed out, the continuous creation of matter is no worse than having it all pop out at once (adios conservation laws, hello metaphysics). He could have added, too, that the continuous creation of matter is no worse than the continuous creation of space.

 

One more word on Hoyle: His vigilantly detailed Aristotelian analysis may not have pleased everyone, but his work is packed full of astrophysical information unavailable anywhere else. He fought not for what he believed in but for what he observed.

 

 

 

CC

[coldcreation]

When friction occurs, heat is generated.

When heat is generated, light escapes into space.

When light escapes into space, some light is not reabsorbed.

When some light is not reabsorbed, it cannot heat anything any more.

When it cannot heat anything any more, it is energy that cannot do work.

When it is energy that cannot do work, it contributes to entropy.

 

If the universe is eternally working:

• The universe must not approach global thermodynamic equilibrium. So...
  
• The universe must not approach mechanical equilibrium. So...
  
• The universe must be a fractal. So...
  
• The cosmological principle has to be wrong.
  

 

Good points kmarinas86, I agree with most of what you write. The fractal concept is interesting too but it is not observed accross the board, e.g., atoms do not resemble the solar system. The solar system does not resemble the Galaxy. Galaxies do not resemble clusters, etc. Forgive me if I have not yet understood what you mean by fractal (it's been a while since I looked at the informative thread you opened on the subject).

 

 

 

The American Scientist (1964, p. 40A) published a rather humorous version of thermodynamic laws:

 

 

1st law: You can’t win, you can only break even.

 

2nd law: You can break even only at the absolute zero.

 

3rd law: You cannot reach absolute zero.

 

Conclusion: You can neither win nor break even.

 

 

 

CC

[Erasmus00]

Anyway, as Hoyle pointed out, the continuous creation of matter is no worse than having it all pop out at once (adios conservation laws, hello metaphysics).

 

While qualitatively it might not be worse, technically its a lot worse. Conservation laws correspond to symmetry, the conservation of energy is related to the idea that the laws of physics are the same at any time.

 

IF, however, there was some beginning to time, then the laws of physics certainly were not the same THEN. This means that energy SHOULD NOT BE conserved right near the beginning.

 

However, to continuously create normal matter would violate many conservation laws (lepton number, baryon number, etc).

 

Now, as to the continuous creation of space- almost any GR based solution has an evolving 3 space.

-Will

[modest]

Yes, the early universe is a quasi-equilibrium vacuum state. The ground-state energy, or ZPE fluctuations are large in spatial extent but small in amplitude. What we have is a state of very low disorder, few random peaks in energy. The universe is fairly smooth and perturbation-free.

 

If this doe not fit in with what you learned about entropy try this: consider a high-vacuum state (say, before we add ZPE and ZPF). The 3-dimensional surface is virtually flat, Euclidean, and entropy (disorder, randomness, etc.) is zero (or very nearly so). Now add the irreducible ground-energy, ZPE with its irreducible zero-point fluctuations. Now we have a state, one that represents a real vacuum, within which there is a minimum amount of interaction between constituents, symmetry is progressively and spontaneously 'breaking.' Entropy is small.

CC

You and I seem to have vastly different ideas of entropy - So I’m going to get to the basics:

You seem to be saying: homogeneous = order = low entropy

My thinking is: homogeneous = disorder = high entropy

Only when a system becomes homogeneous does it have maximum entropy. Let’s consider an example that is taught in high school chemistry:

A box has a divider separating it into 2 halves. One half is filled with noble gas A and the other half is filled with noble gas B. This system is inhomogeneous - and it has low entropy. When we put a hole in the divider the two gasses will spontaneously mix. An equal amount of A and B will be evenly spread into both halves. The system has become homogeneous and now has maximum entropy.

Here is a website that graphs entropy and homogeneousness over time using this example:

Physics Web Course - Entropy

The same principle applies to heat, pressure, or density in a system. The more homogeneous, the higher the entropy.

 

A low-entropy system will have contained subsystems of different temperatures, pressures, and densities. This is a high-order system. Consider the example of a room that has a cup of ice water that melts and forms an equilibrium. This is a lower-entropy system becoming a higher-entropy system.

 

So, if your universe some infinite years ago had newly-formed matter evenly spread across it - all at the same temperature and pressure. This is a homogeneous system at equilibrium. This is a system at maximum entropy.

 

Fast-forward an infinite number of years and our universe is not so homogeneous. There are subsystems of different pressure and temperature. There are systems of structure and order unlike your early universe. This system now has less entropy than your universe of infinite years ago.

 

And, a system will not spontaneously move from more to less entropy.

 

So, when you explain (like you do above) that your universe was smooth and perturbation-free you should realize you are describing a system of maximum entropy. A low entropy system is not smooth and is perturbed. You are basically saying that your system wants to even itself out and smooth itself out because it is so smooth and even. :evil:

 

-modest

[coldcreation]

You and I seem to have vastly different ideas of entropy - So I’m going to get to the basics:

You seem to be saying: homogeneous = order = low entropy

My thinking is: homogeneous = disorder = high entropy

 

Rather than theorizing first, lets look at another empirical law and see if we can resolve the problem of the interpretation of what is entropy:

 

Ultimately, the third law of thermodynamics tells us how the universe might have evolved: At absolute zero temperature all waves (or particles) will be in their lowest energy state and the entropy is zero.

 

 

 

Only when a system becomes homogeneous does it have maximum entropy. Let’s consider an example that is taught in high school chemistry:

A box has a divider separating it into 2 halves. One half is filled with noble gas A and the other half is filled with noble gas B. This system is inhomogeneous - and it has low entropy. When we put a hole in the divider the two gasses will spontaneously mix. An equal amount of A and B will be evenly spread into both halves. The system has become homogeneous and now has maximum entropy.

 

I had a feeling this was the source of your incomplete interpretation of entropy.

 

The universe was in the distant past a much more simple place, before stars, galaxies and people. Entropy is responsible for much of the complexity and increased randomness observed today. This may sound fanciful for promoters of entropy as chaos or global disorder. After all entropy is often described with the example of a gas spreading from one side of a compartmentalized container (with a hole to allow gas to pass through) to fill the entire container. The diffused result is more randomly scattered than the original configuration. Yet this restricted view is too simplistic. It seems related, albeit from afar, to the expansion of the universe spreading out like a gas in a closed space. The facts are different.

 

What we observe in the universe is the condensation of clouds (composed of atoms, molecules, dust, etc.) to form stars. Where is the increase of entropy in this ubiquitous phenomenon? From a diffuse cloud in unstable equilibrium near the ground state energy interactions due to Casimir forces and gravity lead to the formation of stars where atoms and molecules in a kinetic frenzy jump from the ground state to a higher energy levels. Atoms collide, bounce, interact with others. Even if we throw convection currents into the mix, entropy has increased: the second law of thermodynamics is not violated in the star-formation process.

 

 

 

Here is a website that graphs entropy and homogeneousness over time using this example:

Physics Web Course - Entropy

The same principle applies to heat, pressure, or density in a system. The more homogeneous, the higher the entropy.

 

In that link it is expressed: "The trend towards equal distribution is based only on probability and has nothing to do with special physical properties of the particels or the geometry of the experiment."

 

This box representation has little to do with real systems that can be observed empirically, where special physical properties of particles, and geometry (gravity), play an important role.

 

So the conclusion that "A system in equilibrium has maximum entropy" is at best incomplete, and at worst, a complete misrepresentation of the second law of thermodynamics.

 

A low-entropy system will have contained subsystems of different temperatures, pressures, and densities. This is a high-order system. Consider the example of a room that has a cup of ice water that melts and forms an equilibrium. This is a lower-entropy system becoming a higher-entropy system.

 

Indeed, the conclusion that all ground-energy states have the same temperature and that the value of this temperature is equal to zero, cannot be drawn as a consistent outcome of the first and second laws of thermodynamics. An additional fundamental principle is required: The third law of thermodynamics, sometimes called the Nernst heat theorem or principle (1906), in honor of the German physical chemist Walther Hermann Nernst.

 

 

 

So, if your universe some infinite years ago had newly-formed matter evenly spread across it - all at the same temperature and pressure. This is a homogeneous system at equilibrium. This is a system at maximum entropy.

 

The universe grows further from equilibrium as fluctuations and interactions increase with time, thus causing entropy to augment. Indeed if minus infinity was attainable, then entropy would be zero along with temperature according to the third law of thermodynamics:

 

At absolute zero, the entropy of a system is also zero.

 

 

In another way:

 

The entropy of all systems and of all states of a system is zero at absolute zero.

 

 

The following statement of the third law is signed Simon and dated 1927:

 

At absolute zero the entropy differences disappear between those states of a system between which reversible transitions are possible at least in principle.

 

 

Fast-forward an infinite number of years and our universe is not so homogeneous. There are subsystems of different pressure and temperature. There are systems of structure and order unlike your early universe. This system now has less entropy than your universe of infinite years ago.

 

You have the same problem inherent in BB cosmology. Entropy is an increasing property in a universe where stars and larger structures are forming from the undifferentiated matter. The evolution of the universe along with galaxy formation cannot be drawn as a consistent outcome of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

 

Something else (placing aside electromagnetic and gravitational interactions for now) is required.

 

 

In 1930 Simon formulated what appears to provide a glimpse of the solution, namely, that the entropy of all factors within a system at equilibrium disappears at absolute zero. Seven years later he stated a rather safe formulation of the 3rd law, stressing that the entropy contribution of each factor within a system in inertial equilibrium becomes zero at absolute zero (from Hiebert, 1978). In Simon’s words:

 

The contribution to the entropy of each subsystem that is in inertial equilibrium disappears at absolute zero.

 

Using more recent vocabulary, the third law can be restated:

 

For each given set of values of amounts of constituents and parameters of a system, there exists one stable equilibrium state with zero temperature.

 

The deep-seated implication of the third law is that the stable equilibrium state with absolute zero temperature is the ground-energy state—an inference from the facts that temperature can have nonnegative values only and that for given values of constituents and parameters the temperature is lowest for the ground-energy stable equilibrium state. Every ground-energy stable equilibrium state has zero temperature. Recall that absolute temperature T for any stable equilibrium state or system cannot be negative—this implies that the entropy of all stable equilibrium states is a nondecreasing function of energy. The ground-energy stable equilibrium state has the lowest entropy. The conclusion implies that the energy of stable equilibrium states with given values of constituent and parameters (or variables) are a monotonically increasing convex function of entropy (Gyftopoulous, Beretta, 1991).

 

Too, what follows, is that the entropy of a system at extent temperatures comparable to what is hypothesized near the Plank scale and Plank time (as one tends towards t = 0, or near the big bang, whatever that was, or wasn't) is a state of maximum entropy. This is why the second law cannot be used to help physicists understand the origin of a BBU. Hint: it is not the law that breaks-down, it is the big bang theory, BBT.

 

 

And, a system will not spontaneously move from more to less entropy.

 

Precisely. That is the great problem with a universe that begins with excruciatingly high temperature, high entropy, and subsequently expands.

 

[Edited to include:]

 

Clearly, the universe according to the canonical-hot-big-bang-DE-CDM expansion hypothesis the universe is heading straight toward a state of absolute zero temperature (the big freeze) as time t tends to infinity, where entropy is equal to zero.

 

Entropy is a decreasing property in an expanding universe. It starts out rediculously high and tends to zero with time t. [End edit.]

 

 

So, when you explain (like you do above) that your universe was smooth and perturbation-free you should realize you are describing a system of maximum entropy. A low entropy system is not smooth and is perturbed. You are basically saying that your system wants to even itself out and smooth itself out because it is so smooth and even.

 

I have shown above that the concept of entropy, along with how it manifests itself as a property inherent in the nature of the real world, how entropy evolves in this universe and how it can be extrapolated back to early times, can best be understood when employed in concert with the third law of thermodynamics.

 

 

Certainly, the general equation of motion that reflects time evolutionary features of such phenomena as the nondecrease of entropy and the principle of energy conservation remain to be discovered. We may nevertheless access information and details from the clues and signs that are available, both on experimental, observational and conceptual or theoretical grounds. More important, arguably, is the inevitability that all constituents and parameters, energy and entropy cannot be decreased indefinitely (when extrapolating back in time). There would appear then to come a time in history when the universe was basking lazily waiting patiently for action, the flux of radiation and complexity to spontaneously auto-generate—without a little bit of help from its friends.

 

 

 

 

 

Something has only just begun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CC

[modest]

Rather than theorizing first, lets look at another empirical law and see if we can resolve the problem of the interpretation of what is entropy:

 

Ultimately, the third law of thermodynamics tells us how the universe might have evolved: At absolute zero temperature all waves (or particles) will be in their lowest energy state and the entropy is zero.

 

I had a feeling this was the source of your incomplete interpretation of entropy.

 

The universe was in the distant past a much more simple place, before stars, galaxies and people. Entropy is responsible for much of the complexity and increased randomness observed today. This may sound fanciful for promoters of entropy as chaos or global disorder. After all entropy is often described with the example of a gas spreading from one side of a compartmentalized container (with a hole to allow gas to pass through) to fill the entire container. The diffused result is more randomly scattered than the original configuration. Yet this restricted view is too simplistic. It seems related, albeit from afar, to the expansion of the universe spreading out like a gas in a closed space. The facts are different.

 

What we observe in the universe is the condensation of clouds (composed of atoms, molecules, dust, etc.) to form stars. Where is the increase of entropy in this ubiquitous phenomenon? From a diffuse cloud in unstable equilibrium near the ground state energy interactions due to Casimir forces and gravity lead to the formation of stars where atoms and molecules in a kinetic frenzy jump from the ground state to a higher energy levels. Atoms collide, bounce, interact with others. Even if we throw convection currents into the mix, entropy has increased: the second law of thermodynamics is not violated in the star-formation process.

 

In that link it is expressed: "The trend towards equal distribution is based only on probability and has nothing to do with special physical properties of the particels or the geometry of the experiment."

 

This box representation has little to do with real systems that can be observed empirically, where special physical properties of particles, and geometry (gravity), play an important role.

 

So the conclusion that "A system in equilibrium has maximum entropy" is at best incomplete, and at worst, a complete misrepresentation of the second law of thermodynamics.

 

Indeed, the conclusion that all ground-energy states have the same temperature and that the value of this temperature is equal to zero, cannot be drawn as a consistent outcome of the first and second laws of thermodynamics. An additional fundamental principle is required: The third law of thermodynamics, sometimes called the Nernst heat theorem or principle (1906), in honor of the German physical chemist Walther Hermann Nernst.

 

The universe grows further from equilibrium as fluctuations and interactions increase with time, thus causing entropy to augment. Indeed if minus infinity was attainable, then entropy would be zero along with temperature according to the third law of thermodynamics:

 

At absolute zero, the entropy of a system is also zero.

 

In another way:

 

The entropy of all systems and of all states of a system is zero at absolute zero.

 

The following statement of the third law is signed Simon and dated 1927:

 

At absolute zero the entropy differences disappear between those states of a system between which reversible transitions are possible at least in principle.

 

You have the same problem inherent in BB cosmology. Entropy is an increasing property in a universe where stars and larger structures are forming from the undifferentiated matter. The evolution of the universe along with galaxy formation cannot be drawn as a consistent outcome of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

 

Something else (placing aside electromagnetic and gravitational interactions for now) is required.

 

In 1930 Simon formulated what appears to provide a glimpse of the solution, namely, that the entropy of all factors within a system at equilibrium disappears at absolute zero. Seven years later he stated a rather safe formulation of the 3rd law, stressing that the entropy contribution of each factor within a system in inertial equilibrium becomes zero at absolute zero (from Hiebert, 1978). In Simon’s words:

 

The contribution to the entropy of each subsystem that is in inertial equilibrium disappears at absolute zero.

 

Using more recent vocabulary, the third law can be restated:

 

For each given set of values of amounts of constituents and parameters of a system, there exists one stable equilibrium state with zero temperature.

 

The deep-seated implication of the third law is that the stable equilibrium state with absolute zero temperature is the ground-energy state—an inference from the facts that temperature can have nonnegative values only and that for given values of constituents and parameters the temperature is lowest for the ground-energy stable equilibrium state. Every ground-energy stable equilibrium state has zero temperature. Recall that absolute temperature T for any stable equilibrium state or system cannot be negative—this implies that the entropy of all stable equilibrium states is a nondecreasing function of energy. The ground-energy stable equilibrium state has the lowest entropy. The conclusion implies that the energy of stable equilibrium states with given values of constituent and parameters (or variables) are a monotonically increasing convex function of entropy (Gyftopoulous, Beretta, 1991).

 

Too, what follows, is that the entropy of a system at extent temperatures comparable to what is hypothesized near the Plank scale and Plank time (as one tends towards t = 0, or near the big bang, whatever that was, or wasn't) is a state of maximum entropy. This is why the second law cannot be used to help physicists understand the origin of a BBU. Hint: it is not the law that breaks-down, it is the big bang theory, BBT.

 

Precisely. That is the great problem with a universe that begins with excruciatingly high temperature, high entropy, and subsequently expands.

 

I have shown above that the concept of entropy, along with how it manifests itself as a property inherent in the nature of the real world, how entropy evolves in this universe and how it can be extrapolated back to early times, can best be understood when employed in concert with the third law of thermodynamics.

 

Certainly, the general equation of motion that reflects time evolutionary features of such phenomena as the nondecrease of entropy and the principle of energy conservation remain to be discovered. We may nevertheless access information and details from the clues and signs that are available, both on experimental, observational and conceptual or theoretical grounds. More important, arguably, is the inevitability that all constituents and parameters, energy and entropy cannot be decreased indefinitely (when extrapolating back in time). There would appear then to come a time in history when the universe was basking lazily waiting patiently for action, the flux of radiation and complexity to spontaneously auto-generate—without a little bit of help from its friends.

 

Something has only just begun.

 

CC

 

Wow, that is a very nice wording and rewording and iteration and reiteration of the third law. You wrote "absolute zero" 11 times. But, if you read my post you will see that I am not asking about the rules of entropy when your model alleges absolute zero. Indeed, the first two laws of thermodynamics are non-applicable at absolute zero because entropy is limited to zero (i.e. there can be no change in entropy in a system when it is at absolute zero). On the other hand, what I asked: After matter and energy were established in your universe, they manifest homogeneously with regard to temperature, pressure, density, and chemical affinity. At this point, the [first 2] laws of thermodynamics do apply and entropy is not constant - especially if you want spontaneous change to happen. Any change your universe undergoes now must necessarily be accompanied by a change in entropy, and the change from this epoch to today is large. Namely from disorder to order, from homogeneous to heterogeneous, from equilibrium to progressive. This massive change and entropy are undoubtedly cognate, and the change in entropy is undoubtedly a decrease. So, the problems you point out in the standard model regarding entropy are all-too-evident in your model as well. As far as this thread is concerned - that is all I’m saying. We can talk about spontaneous matter and energy creation violating conservation laws and the imperfections of an evolving universe model over infinite time scales in some other thread.

[coldcreation]

.

 

 

 

Wow,...You wrote "absolute zero" 11 times

 

[Edited to add:]

A Brief History of Time, inarguably a masterwork, was more than a best seller. In it, Hawking parted from the conventions of natural science to write in a more stylistic unfettered manner: dramatic, poetic and prophetic. “At the big bang and other singularities, all the laws would have broken down, so God would still have had complete freedom to choose what happened and how the universe began.” (1988 p. 173).

 

In Hawking’s concluding Chapter 11, God is made reference to 17 times. Anecdotal trivialities? Perhaps not.

 

BTW, you wrote entropy 8 times in that one small paragraph.

 

So mentioning a fundamental thermal limit (in a discussion on thermodynamic equilibrium systems) eleven times is hardly surprising.

 

 

 

...At this point, the [first 2] laws of thermodynamics do apply and entropy is not constant - especially if you want spontaneous change to happen. Any change your universe undergoes now must necessarily be accompanied by a change in entropy, and the change from this epoch to today is large. Namely from disorder to order, from homogeneous to heterogeneous, from equilibrium to progressive. This massive change and entropy are undoubtedly cognate, and the change in entropy is undoubtedly a decrease. ...

 

Your stament is not rigorous. In fact it is false.

 

Galaxy formation does not violate either the first law or second law of thermodynamics. (What is your source of information?)

 

[end edit]

 

 

It can be (and has been above) assigned the value of zero to both the temperature and entropy of the very early pre-matter universe because the two laws imply that no states exist with lower temperature of entropy. Therefore, energy and temperature have absolute values greater than or equal to zero, corresponding to the lowest energy stable equilibrium state. The system can transfer energy to weight only if a net change occurs in the values of the amounts of constituents. Here the constituents are zero-point fluctuations in the ground state energy of the vacuum.

 

The fact that entropy is created irreversibly brings to light some fundamentally important inferences. These might be nothing more than mere curiosities were it not for the important phenomenon that entropy non-decrease implies.

 

 

 

 

Don't fight the chill.

 

 

 

 

 

CC

[modest]

 

[Edited to add:]

A Brief History of Time, inarguably a masterwork, was more than a best seller. In it, Hawking parted from the conventions of natural science to write in a more stylistic unfettered manner: dramatic, poetic and prophetic. “At the big bang and other singularities, all the laws would have broken down, so God would still have had complete freedom to choose what happened and how the universe began.” (1988 p. 173).

 

In Hawking’s concluding Chapter 11, God is made reference to 17 times. Anecdotal trivialities? Perhaps not.

 

CC

 

Concerning the Hartle-Hawking model and Steven Hawking's view on god:

 

From A Brief History of Time:

"If the no boundary proposal is correct, He [God] had no freedom at all to choose initial conditions"

 

So - Yes, he is being poetical. The Hartle-Hawking model claims the universe arising out of nothing.

 

Concerning the standard model:

 

Galaxy formation does not violate either the first law or second law of thermodynamics. (What is your source of information?

 

Good

 

-modest

[coldcreation]

.

 

 

So you see, modern cosmology, having evolved primarily from the notion of instabilities associated with the GR field equations and the subsequent interpretation of redshift z as, first, a Doppler effect, then as an expansion of space, finds itself in gross noncompliance with several natural laws (at least two of the laws of thermodynamics),

 

Whereas the concept (Coldcreation) developed as an alternative to the BBT, having evolved from the natural laws (all the laws of thermodynamics) themselves, finds itself not in violation of those laws (since it follows from them), but apparently at odds with GR, i.e., the Coldcreation universe is not unstable against collapse or expansion, e.g., there is no change in the scale factor to the metric, since there is no scale factor, the universe in infinite in both spacial and temporal extent.

 

It was easier to modify slightly GR (without destroying it) than to re-write the physical laws.

 

 

...At this point, the [first 2] laws of thermodynamics do apply and entropy is not constant - especially if you want spontaneous change to happen. Any change your universe undergoes now must necessarily be accompanied by a change in entropy, and the change from this epoch to today is large. Namely from disorder to order, from homogeneous to heterogeneous, from equilibrium to progressive. This massive change and entropy are undoubtedly cognate, and the change in entropy is undoubtedly a decrease. ...

 

 

Your stament is not rigorous. In fact it is false.

 

Galaxy formation does not violate either the first law or second law of thermodynamics. (What is your source of information?

 

 

There is no source, correct?

 

 

 

 

CC

[modest]

Galaxy formation does not violate either the first law or second law of thermodynamics.

 

Good

 

There is no source, correct?

 

You misunderstand - I am saying 'good'. Good for the standard model that galaxy formation does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. I'm glad I finally got you to admit that. If you say it does violate the laws - then it does for your model as well. If you say it does not violate the thermodynamic laws then good.

 

-modest

[coldcreation]

...I am saying 'good'. Good for the standard model that galaxy formation does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. I'm glad I finally got you to admit that. If you say it does violate the laws - then it does for your model as well. If you say it does not violate the thermodynamic laws then good.

 

-modest

 

The violations of the standard model occur primarily, but not exclusively (see BHs, DE, DM, related systems, etc.) near the beginning of the universe and as time tends to infinity, as the CMBR approaches zero K, where, as you will have noticed above (11 times) entropy is zero, or tends to zero. So entropy begins high, then seems to normalize at the present epoch, and then decreases with time t, if one takes the BBT at face value.

 

 

 

 

Bad,

not

good

.

 

 

 

 

 

CC

[Erasmus00]

In that link it is expressed: "The trend towards equal distribution is based only on probability and has nothing to do with special physical properties of the particels or the geometry of the experiment."

 

This box representation has little to do with real systems that can be observed empirically, where special physical properties of particles, and geometry (gravity), play an important role.

 

I somehow missed this the first time through this thread. You miss the entire point of thermodynamics. The point of thermodynamics is that DETAILS ARE IRRELEVANT. Thermodynamics applies to anything in equilibrium, regardless of what physical processes brought it to equilibrium. Hence, (for instance) the boltzman factor can be used for ANY classical system, and works equally well for ideal gasses and solids. Similarly, the bose distribution works for any relevant system and works equally well for photons and oscillations in a crystal.

 

In other words, if you are using thermodynamics you are making the statement that "geometry and special properties" are irrelevant, and something universal can be extrapolated.

-Will