Does the Big Bang Theory contradict the Law of Entropy?

[RawHumor]

The second law of thermodynamics basically states that, in nature, things move toward a higher degree of disorder, or entropy.

With the Big Bang theory, mass chaos resulted in a nicely structured universe.

Contradiction?

 

[DarkAngel]

Depends on how you look at any one theory, will depend on the order of things.

The Chaos Theory, is perfect example.

 

[islandman]

Perhaps the universe is moving to return to entropy. Wouldn't surprise me if the universe was cyclical.

 

[sunstruck]

The Chaos Theory, is perfect example.

Isn't that based on the second law of thermodynamics?

 

[RawHumor]

Perhaps the universe is moving to return to entropy. Wouldn't surprise me if the universe was cyclical.

That doesn't work though. You can't have disorder go toward order, unless there is an outside force causing it to happen.

In this case, we're talking about the whole universe, so how outside can you get?

 

[islandman]

That doesn't work though. You can't have disorder go toward order, unless there is an outside force causing it to happen.

In this case, we're talking about the whole universe, so how outside can you get?

Why not? Osmosis in the human body does the same thing, in essence.

 

[DarkAngel]

Isn't that based on the second law of thermodynamics?

yeah sort of, but most math laws can be interwoven together

 

[sunstruck]

Plus, doesn't the second law speak to a closed system? The universe, even our lone solar system, would not be considered a closed system.

 

[DarkAngel]

Why not? Osmosis in the human body does the same thing, in essence.

Osmosis is the passage of a liquid through a semi-permeable membrane

 

[RawHumor]

Plus, doesn't the second law speak to a closed system? The universe, even our lone solar system, would not be considered a closed system.

Yes, it does. But, in the BIG scheme of things, (like, back in seconds before the Big Bang happened), you could say that the entire univers IS the system. However you want to define it, you could theoretically draw borders around it.

 

[teddybear4play]

The second law of thermodynamics basically states that, in nature, things move toward a higher degree of disorder, or entropy.

With the Big Bang theory, mass chaos resulted in a nicely structured universe.

Contradiction?

The universe was probably much more structured when it was the size of the dot on this letter i.

Then it exploded.

TB4p

 

[islandman]

Osmosis is the passage of a liquid through a semi-permeable membrane

Yes, and it allows high concentrations of elements to gravitate towards areas of low concentration, until an equilibrium is achieved.

With galaxies red-shifting, could it be a similar process?

Clearly, i'm out of my league.

 

[hogjack]

I dunno but

I seem to be facing a personal expansion of my universe while simultaneously being hammered by entropic forces.

Completely unfair.

 

[RawHumor]

Re: Re: Does the Big Bang Theory contradict the Law of Entropy?

The universe was probably much more structured when it was the size of the dot on this letter i.

Then it exploded.

Yes. The explosion would be highly chaotic. What followed was highly ordered.

 

[sunstruck]

Yes, it does. But, in the BIG scheme of things, (like, back in seconds before the Big Bang happened), you could say that the entire univers IS the system. However you want to define it, you could theoretically draw borders around it.

You can't draw borders around infinity.

But that isn't the point.

The point is that the second law is based on statistics, and when you are dealing with a smaller space, ie one solar system so the stats are much different and can allow for a decrease in entropy.

 

[RawHumor]

You can't draw borders around infinity.

But that isn't the point.

The point is that the second law is based on statistics, and when you are dealing with a smaller space, ie one solar system so the stats are much different and can allow for a decrease in entropy.

The universe isn't infinite. It only appears that way because we can't see all of it.

And a law is a law. A law becomes a law because that's what always happens. You can't say, matter is not created or destroyed, except when it is.

 

[sunstruck]

That's not true. Science is an ever evolving thing. And the law IS refering to closed systems, which I would not consider our solar system to be.

The universe is not considered to be infinite because we can't see it's borders. Do tell, what is beyond the border of the universe?

 

[RawHumor]

That's not true. Science is an ever evolving thing. And the law IS refering to closed systems, which I would not consider our solar system to be.

The universe is not considered to be infinite because we can't see it's borders. Do tell, what is beyond the border of the universe?

I know that the law is referring to closed systems. I'm not contradicting that. I'm not saying that anything is beyond the borders of the universe, only that it has borders. Those borders define the closed system.

 

[sunstruck]

That doesn't make anysence. I'm not talking about our known universe, I'm talking about space. ALL of it. That is infinite. There can't be an end and nothing beyond it because nothing does not exist. There is no such thing as nothing.

Why on earth would anyone think that? I've yet to find any scientific theory from the last century that claims the universe is anything other than infinite.

 

[DarkAngel]

Okay here is an interesting read for those who want to know what Raw is trying to get at.


http://me.essortment.com/entropylawssc_recn.htm



addtion:

Sorry about the pop ups on the page.. didn't notice till I shut off my ad killer.

 

[RawHumor]

That doesn't make anysence. I'm not talking about our known universe, I'm talking about space. ALL of it. That is infinite. There can't be an end and nothing beyond it because nothing does not exist. There is no such thing as nothing.

Why on earth would anyone think that? I've yet to find any scientific theory from the last century that claims the universe is anything other than infinite.

Actually, I can't prove that it is not infinite, but I've had many atheist (or agnostic) friends describe to me theories about the universe expanding and contracting. I never thought too much about it. In any case, at some point, wasn't it all contained in that one little particle? Or was it all empty space (actually, totally empty, as in vacuum) waiting to be filled by matter which was all contained in that one little particle?

 

[sunstruck]

Ok that article would actually support the big bang. The idea being that order could be created in one part of the universe and thusly cause disorder in another part. I could go with that.

 

[sunstruck]

Actually, I can't prove that it is not infinite, but I've had many atheist (or agnostic) friends describe to me theories about the universe expanding and contracting. I never thought too much about it. In any case, at some point, wasn't it all contained in that one little particle? Or was it all empty space (actually, totally empty, as in vacuum) waiting to be filled by matter which was all contained in that one little particle?

No. The big bang doesn't claim that there was NOTHING before it. Only that there was no organizes planetary system. No life.

 

[DarkAngel]

Ok that article would actually support the big bang. The idea being that order could be created in one part of the universe and thusly cause disorder in another part. I could go with that.

I thought the article was interesting, and Raw brings up some good points.

 

[sunstruck]

I thought the article was interesting, and Raw brings up some good points.

I'm not saying that he doesn't, I just disagree.

This has nothing to do with my blatent sexual desire for all that is my Beefcake. lmao