i wonder if he’ll cover chaos theory at any point in the series… that’d be tasty

Bloody death metal fan… 😉

but it is here despite all of our understanding and Brian Cox’s failure to address this huge gaping hole in our understanding somewhat undermines his attempts to be an authority on the matter. Don’t get me wrong, I rather like floppy haired science guy but he does rather gloss over some of the bigger questions.

He was on the radio the other week and addressed this, he said we simply dont know the answers and to be a scientist means being happy to admit that we dont know all the answers at present but we may do one day.

If the second law of thermodynamics is true, why are we here? If all systems eventually tend towards entropy then what was the power source that created all of this order and what possible reason do we have to believe that the second law will kick in at some point and lead to the heat death of the universe?

the ‘order’ in this part of the universe is not, as far as we know, any different from other parts of the universe. the clumping of matter into galaxies/stars/planets etc is driven by gravity, but is also a high entropy state – you can re-phase the problem such that it can be seen to be entropy driven*.

on a local level, looking specifically at lifeforms, you have to look at it as a system driven question. the 2nd law applies to total entropy levels in systems. Just as apparently odd things like endothermic reactions (ones that take in heat, so the beaker of stuff ends up colder than it started) can occur despite seeming to be forbidden, since they result in increased entropy, you can also have areas of increased order/decreased entropy so long as the entropy of the system increases. the entropy of another region must be increased by more than the lifeform’s entropy decreased – lots of this is done by getting rid of low grade heat.

the fact that we exist is testament to the remarkable ability we** have to export all that entropy into our surroundings.

all pretty remarkable really, but not thermodynamically impossible

* if you’re really clever. have seen it done, can’t reproduce it here though it turns out
** where ‘we’ is ‘all lifeforms’. seems that a heft dose of good fortune, and cunning use of catalysis helps.

As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know.

Selah.

One thing that programme did was change my mind on the whole concept of time: Up until now I had always thought of time as an abstract concept that was invented by humans to try and control and define us and the universe.

However, the whole concept of decay described by Brian Cox suggests that time is something that is built into the very fabric of the universe and is in fact vital to the existance of the universe and everything in it…

I thought the same but I also thought although time is directional it is not as simple as a path from A to B. It is A,B and A-B.
(haven’t got a clue where I read that though).

The entropy thing always bugs me.

They can show a sandcastle blowing away and go “ooh look – entropy – time’s arrow”. But the sand forms another unique (if not so recognisable) pattern.

But they never show a copper sulphate solution forming itself into crystals, because that would run contrary to the argument.

Creationists are using the anomalies to claim that “some scientists are renouncing the theory of evolution”. Which is bollx of course.

But what is amazing is that all the photons released at the big bang, which are still going, 13.7 billion light years from where they started have not experienced time at all. If they were wearing (zero mass) watches, not even 1 second would have elapsed.

Zero mass particles travel at the universal constant, C, speed of light, and at that speed time slows to zero.

The sandcastle thing is not an example of increasing entropy, it’s a metaphor for it.

Entropy in a closed system is always increasing. A jar of copper sulfate solution is not a closed system because heat can leave or enter through the walls of the jar.

Anyway. My top tip for perspective is to climb Snowdon on a very sunny clear day. If it’s clear enough you can see the coastline of North Wales, Morcambe Bay, and Cardigan Bay. This allows you to SEE the map of the Earth with your own eyes in full 360 vision and you can relate the actual tangible distances with your knowledge of the map of the globe. Then you can, for a brief moment get a real handle on the actual size of the Earth.

It’s quite exhilarating 🙂

Entropy in a closed system is always increasing

This is the bit that gets me, the very fact that we have such high levels of order in our solar system/galaxy/universe serves to imply that either:

a) We are not in a closed system
b) The second law is wrong

I once had a vision of universes forming like bubbles in champagne amid an infinite ocean of dark matter and then collapsing in on themselves.

One day I would very much like to take up formal study of physics but I am not sure my maths is good enough. Interesting stuff though and in respect of the OP, somewhat sobering.

a) We are not in a closed system

Of course we’re not!

Where’s the sealed boundary around our solar system?

Or, if you mean the universe, then it may be a closed system in which case entropy IS increasing. However it is not maxed out yet.

PS the formal study of Physics is not like these TV shows 🙂

Of course we’re not!

I did specify the levels of order in the universe, which as far as we know is a closed system, hence my postulation of an ocean of dark matter outside of our known universe to fuel the order that we see.

then it may be a closed system in which case entropy IS increasing

‘may’ being the operative word, we don’t know (least of all me!). My original point on this thread was that if this is a sealed system and the second law is true, how did all this order come to exist in the first place, a perfectly valid question I hope.

the formal study of Physics is not like these TV shows

moly old chap, you seem to be very good at telling me things I already know. 🙂

the second law doesn’t require that all regions of all systems have to be at the maximum entropy state possible all, just that changes to that system result in an increase in entropy.

sockpuppet, I know this, I am just curious as to how all of this order occurred in the first place and how we have become sufficiently complex that we can start to have half arsed cracks at explaining it all. 🙂

It is so highly improbable that there has to be some sort of fuel source driving the increased complexity of the universe to the eventual creation of pigeons.

Veering slightly off topic, there seem to be quite a few folk who are interested and eminently more capable than I of understanding all of this mind blowing stuff. I stumbled upon a series of videos a few weeks ago that claim to explain anti gravity and have the maths to back it up. I am in no position to verify this but am interested to hear what the forum thinks of this:

Anti Gravity explained!?!

Bunkum or genuine?

One day I would very much like to take up formal study of physics but I am not sure my maths is good enough.

My GF studied Physics at Uni, I remember looking at some of her work, think equations that literally run to several pages worth of solving. Made me want to vomit just looking at it, never mind trying to solve it, and I used to be good at Maths in high school and college.

Very interesting thread, particularly the Scale of the Universe thingy posted by Rich!

Torminalis – almost certainly bunkum. The whole idea the science tries to quash certain findings is laughable. If there were any shred of a Eureka moment in his research then there would be people all over the place trying to replicate or extend the work so that they could steal the Nobel prize from under his nose.

Any research scientist would sell their kidneys to find the evidence that lets them overturn one of the main established theories – whether that’s gravity, evolution, thermodynamics or whatever. The major advances in science tend to come when someone does just this – and there is then a massive clamour to either disprove them or to confirm the actual findings. The fact that this work has been left to quietly slip away suggests that it’s not all it purports to be, or that the global academic community isn’t interested in overturning the status quo.

That link is full of lolz Torminalis 🙂

The thing I learned about maths at Uni was that it’s possible to think you’ve proved one thing but you’ve actually made a mistake or a misconception, and you’re just wrong.

moly old chap, you seem to be very good at telling me things I already know

Yeah it was my PhD speciality actually 😉

Re order in the universe, I believe there’s been some work done showing that if you take something homogenous and expand it rapidly it forms locally dense areas or stringy bits, a bit like if you burst a soap bubble. You end up with a few large drops, in that case.

I don’t know what kind of energy caused the rapid expansion but it’s clearly the seed for the whole thing. I suppose a fairly tortured analogy would be a big water bomb in a bath. Burst the balloon and the bath fills instantly (ish) with sloshing water and then it eventually comes to rest still and flat. Question is, how did the balloon get there and who burst it?

I dunno, but then I’m no student of cosmology and I am fully aware that me simply being unable to explain it doesn’t mean there’s a hole in the theory 🙂

NB I am not accusing you of this.

That link is full of lolz Torminalis

Though I am too daft to understand why, I had a feeling it might be. 🙂

Well I mean it made me lol. In that the first vid was all crappy hip hop marketing efforts.

If you’ve really overturned the scientific establishment then your work will probably market itself, to those who matter.

Yeah, got all that. I guess what I want to know is what is the fuel source that allows the order that we have observed to thrive despite the trends described by the second law

Tormalis – the fuel source you’re looking for is gravity. Current inflation theories suggest that the universe expanded under negative pressure from gravity (IAW the General Theory of Relativity), which effectively acted as a bank* prepared to lend limitless amounts of money, or energy in this case.

Calculations suggest that the universe we see today could have come from a ball of matter of mass 10kg squeezed into a point a bit smaller than an atomic nucleus.

* Good thing gravity isn’t the universal equivalent of Northern Rock, or the whole thing is stuffed.

Apparently, as there was nothing before it, er – nothing…

Really? Got any evidence to prove this?

Thought not…

got any evidence to prove there was something there before elfin?

thought not….
😉

The moment of the big bang and before is a matter of conjecture. We don’t know for sure, so just deal with it 🙂

Yeah but I’m not claiming there was or wasn’t anything there before, am I?

See?

Can’t have bin ‘nothing’. That’s like me saying to me mum ‘nothing’ when she asks what I’m up to. I’m always up to something. To say otherwise is a lie.

Can’t have bin ‘nothing’

why not?

Explain how something can come from nothing then. Go on.

And BTW I sent you an email t’other day to the addy in your profile.

Can’t have bin ‘nothing’.

Why not?

Just you can’t conceive something doesn’t mean it can’t have been. Or not been.

Explain how something can come from nothing then. Go on

No, you explain why there HAS to have been something. Just because phil can’t explain his position doesn’t make your position automatically correct.

Neither can you then.

Well I have to say, I am flippin’ glad Elfin turned up cos I was well confused before and now it all makes sense. 🙂

Elfin – IF there was something before the big bang, where did that come from?

Dunstable.

And where did Dunstable come from? 😀

woah there! i haven’t stated a position to explain! i merely posted my comment to highlight that somebody asking for proof when they also couldn’t provide evidence to prove otherwise…well is a little odd.

I don’t know and quite frankly I don’t care.

Well, I do actually, if truth be told.

Maybe our universe is just a tiny thing happening inside an atom of another universe, right, and so on and so on, but in some strange and unfathomable (to us anyway) manner, it all loops round so that those atoms within our own universe are actually the universes we’re in.

Could be.

No Phil; I wasn’t saying that there was or there wasn’t, but when someone says there wasn’t something, then they have to prove it.

If they say there might have bin nothing, then fair enough, but equally, then they can also say there might have bin something.

Neither can you then.

Neither can I what?

when someone says there wasn’t something, then they have to prove it

No they don’t. I have read that current theories suggest X, I am not an expert on those theories but I defer to those who are, being in possession of greater knowledge on the subject than I. My own ignorance does not invalidate the idea.

And of course, all talk of the Big Bang is with respect to the Big Bang theory which is simply that. Bleedin obvious that no-one knows for sure innit?

i’m going to leave you and mol arguing over this as i didnt even make a statement to provide evidence for the the first place.

have fun 😆

Go and do something constructive like read my email then.

What did the email say?

No they don’t.

Yes they do. If someone claims something as fact, then they need to be able to provide evidence of this fact. Otherwise it’s just hypothesis and conjecture, not ‘fact’.

Spot the difference:

There was nothing before t’universe began.

There might have bin nothing before t’universe began.

Email is private between myself and Phil and needn’t concern anyone else. I only mentioned it here cos he hasn’t replied that’s all.