Kevin's Watch

Just so as I can be clear - Should I view the Universe as having sprung into existence in a state of being fully wound-up (like a clock) and entropy, the second Law, call it what you will, as being the metaphorical unwinding of it as time progresses. This mental image sort of works for me (without getting into the metaphysics of "who wound up the clock"), but is it right.

And if not, how does entropy function? I mean, has work to be done in order to 'progress' from order to chaos? If all motion (larger than at the atomic level) suddenly ceased in the Universe would it still inexorably move toward ever increasing disorder (if a lot more slowly)? And if the work was not all done beforehand by the metaphysical clock-winder, from whence does the work come, in-system as it were, in order to keep entropy flowing? Or maybe it is just something about the inherent nature of energy - that it requires to be dissipated to it's maximum degree (but this is really our metaphysical clock-winder again isn't it, because it is simply putting the explanation into a basic condition, the cause of which is beyond our reach {because otherwise my next question would be "why does energy require to be dissipated so?"}).

(NB. This question is not an attempt to slip in the clock-winder through the back door (hmm, yes - we'll let that go shall we ) but a genuine attempt to clarify my 'big picture' mental image of how the universe is. It came about as I cleared up my breakfast dishes and was mentally complaining to myself that "Why does it take so much more effort to clean up the mess I make than to make it in the first place?" Life is like that you know: I blame entropy!)

Surely the end result of entropy is the perfectly uniform distribution of energy across all space, resulting in the eventual heat death of the universe?

I've never thought that sounded particularly chaotic...rather the opposite in fact.

And it has to happen because energy can't be destroyed, only transformed.

--A

Avatar wrote: I've never thought that sounded particularly chaotic...rather the opposite in fact.
--A

You're not the only one...it's bugged even the people who matter such that a growing number of papers and texts are weeding out/disentangling entropy from order/disorder. [[randomly ran across that tidbit somewhere somewhat recently. Heh...I haven't actually checked to see if the statement is true, but my impression is there does seem to be a lot more use of things like "energy dispersion" instead of order/disorder.]]

Granted - but it's the order, the regularity if you like, of the sand on a beach as opposed to the order of the sand arranged into the sand castle. But this fails to answer the question as to whether the prevailing move from the second state to the first which appears (the odd backward loops of life and the like notwithstanding) to be the Universal 'order of the day' requires work (in the strict sense of physics) or is spontaneous (to the degree that the starting conditions of the system come 'work done' included like a ready-meal good to go). A ball must have work done on it to get it to the top of the hill. Once there, it can doll down of it's own volition utilising the work that has already been done. How are we to view the second law in terms of work?

The "big bang" was the work?

--A

Answer came there none!

--A

peter wrote:Should I view the Universe as having sprung into existence in a state of being fully wound-up (like a clock) and entropy, the second Law, call it what you will, as being the metaphorical unwinding of it as time progresses.

I think you almost have it. It's not like a clock, it's like a roller-coaster. The roller-coaster ride puts in one big lift at the beginning, which provides all the energy for the rest of the ride. But it doesn't just slowly go down a gradual hill. It goes down ... and up! and down ... and up!

Think of the stars. Those little furnaces made all the complex matter in the universe. They literally are creating order out of chaos - the opposite of entropy. But you can think of it as all the order contained by the sun transforming into something else.

In other words, order changes state and form far more than is needed just to satisfy entropy. It goes here, it goes there ... each peak is a little lower than the last one, but there's a valley in between, and a lot of the energy going down isn't lost, but used to fuel the next trip up.

Nice analogy... but presumably the "momentum" supplied by whatever the initial "impetus" was eventually runs out? I'm impudently extending your rollercoaster analogy to include just a pinch of air resistance and friction here, WF...

Okay I know (think?) it doesn't "run out" per se, because it can't - but the energy differentials resulting from the initial "whatever" that are the root causation allowing currently ongoing change will eventually even out... and at that eventual ultimate balance point, nothing can change any more? Heat death aka eternal stasis, right?

I don't think that entropy is energy disappearing, it is just seeking the point of least potential. It cannot do anything any more. "The unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work".

Losing potential is kind of like going downhill, but the analogy is about the ups and downs, and not anything further.

Yes, the roller coaster analogy gets it in a nutshell.....

But it does tend rather to concentrate on the 'running conditions' as opposed to the initial state of the universe at the point of its appearance. I have a feeling that I've read somewhere that the net energy of the universe is always zero; this might be unrelated however, but clearly as time progresses the universe moves inexorably from one state (via the ups and downs of the roller coaster) to another. V, above, didn't like the order to disorder terminology - but as this is what I'm used to and don't know any other I'll stick with it, using them simply as lables rather than attaching the usual meaning to them.

So the question is, at the point of appearance of the universe order was at, presumably the maximum level it ever achieved (either that or the second Law was only introduced into the picture at some later point). Which? If the first then presumably entropy can be at it's lowest (remembering that entropy is inversely proportional to order) and the system still be in some kind of net zero energy state (possibly by some kind of quantum jiggery pokery). From this point on, the roller coaster provides the energy to do the work of dissipating the energy (increasing the entropy)?

Interesting but the model you are analysing is .. THE universe .. and its beginning. But as the are universes without number .. it seems to me as one swing side dips the other rises .

So the universe we inhabit is merely the result of action of stars or blackholes or other universal action .. and we remain part of a much larger system.

I like the description of movement .. order exists in the sandcastle and in in entropy .. the sands on the beach. To my mind that is a brilliant analogy.

Now granted Ive not a scientific bone in my body .. but I find logic in this description.. I agree that it cant be about merely reduction. Its as Wayfriend describes to my mind ..at least makes sense.

So how can entropy be synonymous with disorder? As you said yourself its just a different kind of order. No? Or am I missing something here? lol Clearly that isnt even remotely improbable lol

But I cant see entropy as anything other than order and certainly not really chaos. Wayfriend made an interesting point about thermal dynamics or energy.

Also it is kinda poetic that the universes net energy level is zero. I dont know if that IS accurate or not but it kinda makes sense that there is x amount of heat / energy that moves or is transferred from one action to another from matter to matter.

Like the swing example .. a particular action causes a specific effect .. that effect is a culmination of action, energy and its ultimate transference.

Funny though that the universe was described as a tightly wound clock that is not self perpetuating in any sense at all and can only unwind .. and no doubt only one way .. my question is why? We are limiting our understanding of how things work by imposing strict parameters to our understanding...

And of course it begs the question who or what is the clock maker ... but you can remove all elements of a clock maker AND its tight winding by simply seeing the universe as a biproduct of multiversal energy exchanges that occur all the time.

That the earth is a tiny part of .. and one day will probably be absorbed into the sun and become something completely different as it explode on its expansion ... As we can see from the different stages of a suns evolution.

To my novice mind its swings and roundabouts.. energy moving from one form to another. So no specific highly wound tensile spring unwinding over time.

Such an analogy denotes an engineer to an too limited object .. and the universe doesnt img neatly fit into such a singular and prescriptive object like a clock.

As to life it is opportunity, momentum and potential .. and only occurs in the right conditions cos life is relatively fragile