2nd Thermo Law

[Resha Caner]

I know the 2nd law of thermodynamics comes up frequently in origins debates. I also understand the 2nd law to be only an empirical generalization at the macro level. That is, on average entropy increases. However, for localized instances that need not be true.

Even if that is the case, it seems any localized organization of material would eventually be overridden and destroyed. Further, as I understand it, these localized anomalies are very short-lived.

So, is anyone familiar with the argument as to how these local anomalies would justify an ongoing organization of material?

Or is my question too muddled?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

As I understand it, as long as the total entropy increases there is no reason entropy cannot decrease in certain areas.
Why would it be very short-lived? I mean on a cosmic scale sure the life span of the sun is absolutely very short but is that the kind of time scale you where refering too?

 

[Nabobalis]

I know the 2nd law of thermodynamics comes up frequently in origins debates. I also understand the 2nd law to be only an empirical generalization at the macro level. That is, on average entropy increases. However, for localized instances that need not be true.

Even if that is the case, it seems any localized organization of material would eventually be overridden and destroyed. Further, as I understand it, these localized anomalies are very short-lived.

So, is anyone familiar with the argument as to how these local anomalies would justify an ongoing organization of material?

Or is my question too muddled?

Entropy of a closed system increases but you have open systems within that closed system which can lower their entropy as along as there is a source of energy that can be used to lower the entropy.

But everything will eventually "die" e.g the Sun will expand and die.

But I'm sure Wiccan Child will give you a wall of text

 

[sfs]

There are two different issues. Yes, the 2nd Law is a statistical law, and there can be very small, very brief fluctuations that violate it. That fact has essentially nothing to do with the origin or evolution of life, or anything else macroscopic for that matter. The second issue is that the 2nd Law permits increases in order and decreases in entropy. What it forbids is a net decrease in entropy in a closed system, but since the Earth is far from being a closed system, that fact is also irrelevant.

 

[Resha Caner]

OK, what's been said clicked with some other bits of information. Specifically, the multiverse idea where our universe was sparked by a universe where the 2nd law didn't apply. But as far as I know that's mere speculation.

So, is there any version that doesn't depend on a multiverse idea?

Because what's been said so far still doesn't escape the 2nd law. Sure, the earth is not a closed system, but no matter how big you draw the envelope, you have to explain what came from outside that envelope.

For example, our universe can't have an infinite past unless it is an open system. Otherwise it would have died by now. So what is outside our universe? Or if it has a finite past, then what came before. The same old dilemma.

I guess I was expecting there was a version that had a bit more to it that I didn't know about.

 

[Resha Caner]

Why would it be very short-lived?

I may be all twisted up, but I thought I heard once that at the quantum level there are brief, local increases in entropy even for closed systems.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Resha, I think your question has been confused for a common creationist missunderstanding.
Could you restate your question as clearly as possible?

 

[Resha Caner]

Could you restate your question as clearly as possible?

I would probably ask a series of questions. They would go something like this:

1. Do you hold that the universe (i.e. the totality of physical things) has a finite or an infinite past?

2. How does your answer to #1 fit with the 2nd law of thermo?

3. Is your answer to #2 a) an idea, b) something that developed from a mathematical model, c) something that is supported by evidence, d) all of these, or e) none of these?

4. If your answer to #3 is c), I'd be interested in learning about it. If your answer was b), I'd still listen but be somewhat less interested. If your answer is a), I'm not interested at all.

This all started because I'm chasing this foggy recollection of mine that QM can violate the 2nd law in some way. If it all comes down to an accounting game where an entropy increase in one spot requires an entropy decrease in another spot I'll just loop back to question #1 because I'd like to know what would trigger such a thing in the first place.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Are you sure you mean the second law of thermo and not the first law?

 

[Resha Caner]

Are you sure you mean the second law of thermo and not the first law?

No, I meant the 2nd law. Why do you ask?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

No, I meant the 2nd law. Why do you ask?

I typed up the question before your clarification was posted. It doesnt matter now ^^

 

[sfs]

I may be all twisted up, but I thought I heard once that at the quantum level there are brief, local increases in entropy even for closed systems.

It's not the quantum level, per se, that matters, but the fact that very small systems have small numbers of particles. This means that there can be statistical fluctuations in their behavior that violate the 2nd Law.

As for the universe as a whole, I am not a cosmologist, but my impression is that that is still an open question. It is, I think, difficult even to formulate thermodynamic descriptions of an expanding universe, and it is not clear whether the universe as a whole obeys the 2nd Law or not. But as I said, this is not my field.

 

[Resha Caner]

It's not the quantum level, per se, that matters, but the fact that very small systems have small numbers of particles. This means that there can be statistical fluctuations in their behavior that violate the 2nd Law.

Ah, I get it. Thanks for the clarification.

I wondered if a departure from the 2nd law at the quantum level was somehow being used to justify an accumulation that would result in an active universe. In other words, a small local decrease in entropy (at the expense of an increase elsewhere) might couple with another small local decrease and so on and so forth until ... bang!

As for the universe as a whole, I am not a cosmologist, but my impression is that that is still an open question. It is, I think, difficult even to formulate thermodynamic descriptions of an expanding universe, and it is not clear whether the universe as a whole obeys the 2nd Law or not. But as I said, this is not my field.

I can understand why you might answer that way based on the way I phased post #8. I didn't mean to demand expertise. If anyone is aware of a cosmological answer to the 2nd law, I'd like to hear about it. It would at least head me in the right direction.

Doesn't the fact that it's an "open question" prick you a bit? I don't like open questions. I like to have line of sight to an answer. Even if I later find I am wrong, at least I'm not just wandering aimlessly about in blissful ignorance.

As it stands so far, it seems cosmology doesn't have an answer that's better than "goddidit." Of course I believe God did it, but I would expect someone is trying to show otherwise.

 

[3sigma]

As it stands so far, it seems cosmology doesn't have an answer that's better than "goddidit." Of course I believe God did it, but I would expect someone is trying to show otherwise.

What sound reason do you have to believe “Goddidit”? If you don’t have one then why believe it? Why not simply accept that there is currently no reasonable answer and leave it at that? Is it because not having an answer makes you feel insecure so you would rather assume a simple explanation that reinforces your comforting religious beliefs? In other words, is your belief based on the desire for emotional comfort rather than sound reasoning?

 

[Resha Caner]

Why not simply accept that there is currently no reasonable answer and leave it at that?

Is any of what you said meant to address the 2nd law of thermo?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Is any of what you said meant to address the 2nd law of thermo?

I'm pretty sure it was meant to adress the quoted part, granted I was wondering the same thing he asked.

 

[3sigma]

Is any of what you said meant to address the 2nd law of thermo?

That’s right; answer a question with a question. Thank you for once again demonstrating the evasiveness of religious believers when asked reasonable and legitimate questions about their beliefs.

In answer to your question, yes, it does address the second law because you introduced “God did it” as an answer to your questions about the second law. So how about answering my questions about your belief that “God did it” is the answer to your questions about the second law? Please have the intellectual honesty to answer those questions in my previous post. Please stop behaving evasively.

 

[TheManeki]

Some people have a desperate need for certainty. They need to feel like they know how it all got started, why they are here, and where they are ultimately going.

Other people have no problem with unknowns or open-ended situations, and even go so far as view them as opportunities for exploration. Even if the answer is not reached, the journey itself will be worthwhile.

I'm not going to take sides, but I've noticed the latter group of people make for much better company.

 

[chilehed]

I also understand the 2nd law to be only an empirical generalization at the macro level.

Not really. Statistical mechanics deals with it on the level of mirostates. The entropy of a system is equal to Boltzman's constant times the information function of the system.

That is, on average entropy increases. However, for localized instances that need not be true.

Only if those localized instances are comprised of a very small number of atoms, say a thousand or less.

Even if that is the case, it seems any localized organization of material would eventually be overridden and destroyed. Further, as I understand it, these localized anomalies are very short-lived.

Indeed

So, is anyone familiar with the argument as to how these local anomalies would justify an ongoing organization of material?

I'm not sure that I understand the question. It sounds as if you might be thinking about the idea that a process that results in an increase in information would violate the 2nd Law. That idea is false, in fact all real thermodynamic processes involve an increase in information. By definition, if entropy has increased then information has as well.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm pretty sure it was meant to adress the quoted part, granted I was wondering the same thing he asked.

My reply in post #15 was a bit (maybe even more than a bit) facetious. The manner in which certain people handle themselves does not lead me to take them seriously.

So, are you asking about my comment on open questions? Or was it something else? I certainly realize that open questions exist. I'm not saying I expect all things to be settled. But I have been an engineer for over 20 years and I have found that for every question I raise, someone else has already thought of it.

So, even if the challenge of the 2nd law is still an open question, I would expect that to be a thorn in the flesh of some very smart people. I expected that physics would have a better answer than what I've heard so far. I'm surprised I haven't heard one yet.

To shrug off the open nature of the question as unimportant is, I think, dishonest. If I am to allow you such an option, then you must also allow me that same option for the tough questions about God. (And I use "you" in the general sense. It's not meant as a personal attack.)