Entropy and How can something come from nothing? And some evolution......

[Jase]

If the universe first existed at a point of singularity, 1) how could enough matter to create the universe exist at a single point, and 2) where did the energy come from to set off the Big Bang? At a singular point, there is no net movement of matter, or it wouldn't be singular. So what gave the matter the energy to explode and bring forth more matter than was present to create the universe?

 

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Nope, the original poster was correct. Total entropy always increases or remains constant in a closed (isolated) system: the surroundings are irrelevant here.

Actually it does depend on your definition of closed. If closed means adiabatically closed as well as closed to the flow of matter then you are correct.  In some engineering texts this definition of closed may be given. I see that the original post did specify an adiabatically closed system. So you are correct as is the orginal poster.

However, in chemistry a closed system is usually considered to be one that allows the flow of energy and not matter. Thus it is closed but not adiabatically isolated. All the Carnot cycle engines that are used to illustrate the basic laws of thermo are closed but not isolated (heat is always flowing in and out over the cycle) so it is easy to see how Lucaspa made this error, especially since creationists sometimes are not careful to specify that the system is isolated.

I think the important point to remember is that the earth is far from being an adiabatically closed (isolated) system.  Energy is received from the sun at a Blackbody temp of about 6000K and radiated into space at about 298 K IIRC. This is a large source of entropy production. 

The universe, however,  is thought to be adibatically closed ( see page 9)


http://astro.uni-tuebingen.de/~wilms/teach/cosmo/cosmochap7.pdf


The microwave background has tremendous entropy because it represents a lot of energy at low temperature. S = (E+PV)/T

Regards from

The Frumious Bandersnatch

Added in Edit: I hope I didn't sound too pedantic in this post. It looks a bit that way when I read it.

 

[DNAunion]

Frumious Bandersnatch: Actually it does depend on your definition of closed.

DNAunion: No, there's no haggling over definitions here - what I said is correct.

I explicitly qualified my statement by adding the term ISOLATED to make clear exactly what definition of "closed system" I and (apparently) the original poster were referring to. Here look again.

[original poster]: Entropy (disorder) always increases or remains constant in a closed system.

Lucaspa: Somewhat correct but not quite. For a system, the total entropy of the systems and its surroundings must increase.

DNAunion: Nope, the original poster was correct. Total entropy always increases or remains constant in a closed (isolated) system: the surroundings are irrelevant here.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

DNAunion: No, there's no haggling over definitions here - what I said is correct.

Look again. Here is what I said.

"So you are correct as is the orginal poster. "

I was just pointing out that it is easy to get these definitions confused.


However, while you are both correct it is irrelevant since evolution on earth  occurs in an open system. 

Regards
Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[DNAunion]

Frumious Bandersnatch: However, while you are both correct it is irrelevant since evolution on earth  occurs in an open system.

DNAunion: Yes, both I and the original poster were correct, and Lucaspa was wrong.

And yes, the evolution of life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics because the Earth and every living organism that inhabits it are open systems.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 06:38 PM DNAunion said this in Post #38

DNAunion: Nope, the original poster was correct. Total entropy always increases or remains constant in a closed (isolated) system: the surroundings are irrelevant here.

In a defined closed system, then the system and surroundings are the same.  In an open system, the system and the surroundings are different. 

The distinction of system and surroundings comes from my college physical chemistry text:  Physical Chemistry by Gordon M. Barrow.

"First, it must be emphasized that in entropy calculations it is important to distinguish between the system and the surroundings of the system.  The system is that part on which we focus our attention.  It may be part of a mechanical system, or more chemically, a gas, liquid, solid, or a reaction mixture.  The surroundings constitute all other parts that might interact with the system.  The surroundings will most frequently consist of heat reservoirs that can add to or subtract heat from the system or mechanical devices which can do work on or accept work from that system.  The entropy change, not only of the system but also of the surroundings, will be of interest, and it will be important in all entropy considerations to distinguish these components clearly. The combination of the system and its surroundings correspond to an "isolated system", as suggested in Fig. 7.4, since the process being considered affects nothing outside of the system and its surroundings"  pg 191-192.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 08:37 PM Jase said this in Post #39

Lucaspa, how have they proven the Big Bang and that the universe came from a singular point?

There are several pieces of evidence. Expansion is one of them.  The Cosmic Microwave Background (COMB) radiation is another.  The hydrogen:helium ratio is another piece of evidence.  The amount if deuterium is another. So is a stable neutrino at 100 million electron volts.

19. MJ Reese, Piecing together the biggest puzzle of all.  Science 290: 1919-1925, Dec 2000.

God could have easily created the universe and set it in expanding motion.

This is the Appearance of Age or Oomphalos Argument.  The answer to that one isn't scientific but theological.  What you just said is that God is a liar. 

That also doesn't account for the massive gaps all over the universe which shouldn't be there if it all started at a singular point.

Gravity accounts for those.

Matter also doesn't "spring" forth from nothing. The same amount of matter exists today as it did at the creation of the universe.

Actually, a lot less.  When matter came into existence it was in matter-antimatter pairs.  What we have left is the 1 part in a billion extra matter over antimatter.  The COMB is the energy from the annihilation of the matter and antimatter.

The claims that the universe has always existed is rediculous.

No Boundary works mathematically.

Humans will NEVER prove any scientifc theory to a "T", you can only make educated guesses at what you perceive to be true, not what actually is.

Using deductive logic it is impossible to strictly "prove" any theory.  That is true. Science falsifies.  However, it gets to a point where the evidence is so overwhelming that it is perverse to withold provisional acceptance.  For instance, do you question the theory that the sun is the center of the solar system?  Same thing for Big Bang.

No human was present at the universes creation/singularity, however, God was.

This ignores that the present is the way it is because the past was the way it was.  No human was around to see a meteor hit to form Meteor Crator in Arizona, either.  Yet is there any serious doubt that is what happened?

In terms of being religious and doubting that Big Bang, at www.reasons.org, Hugh Ross claims that only an atheist could doubt the Big Bang.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 08:47 PM Jase said this in Post #41

If the universe first existed at a point of singularity, 1) how could enough matter to create the universe exist at a single point, and 2) where did the energy come from to set off the Big Bang? At a singular point, there is no net movement of matter, or it wouldn't be singular. So what gave the matter the energy to explode and bring forth more matter than was present to create the universe? 

The matter didn't "explode". Instead, remember that matter/energy and spacetime came into existence at the Big Bang.  Spacetime is expanding.  Exactly what causes the expansion of spacetime is still somewhat unknown. 

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: If only you could understand what you read Lucaspa!

Lucaspa [quoting material]: "The combination of the system and its surroundings correspond to an "isolated system", as suggested in Fig. 7.4, since the process being considered affects nothing outside of the system and its surroundings"  pg 191-192.

DNAunion: Note that an isolated system does not affect anything outside of that system. So the surroundings of the ISOLATED system are irrelevant, just as I said!

So we see that even in Lucaspas best counter, total entropy will always increase or remain constant in a closed (isolated) system.

**************************************************

The problem is that Lucaspa doesn't know squat about thermodynamics. I mean, come on, I’ve already showed him his ignorance concerning what the types of thermodynamic systems are, right here at this forum. Here’s a link:

http://www.christianforums.com/editpost.php?action=editpost&postid=503507

And here’s the explanation again (perhaps some day Lucaspa will learn).


***************************************************

Lucaspa: I have never seen your definition of "closed" system in any thermodynamics text.

DNAunion: You need to read more! And it’s not my definition: any one who really knows anything about thermodynamics knows that.

Thermodynamic Systems
A thermodynamic system is that part of the universe that is under consideration. A real or imaginary boundary separates the system from the rest of the universe, which is referred to as the surroundings. Often thermodynamic systems are characterized by the nature of this boundary as follows:

Isolated systems are completely isolated from their surroundings. Neither heat nor matter can be exchanged between the system and the surroundings. An example of an isolated system would be an insulated container, such as an insulated gas cylinder. (In reality, a system can never be absolutely isolated from its environment, because there is always at least some slight coupling, even if only via minimal gravitational attraction).

Closed systems are separated from the surroundings by an impermeable barrier. Heat can be exchanged between the system and the surroundings, but matter cannot. A greenhouse is an example of a closed system.

Open systems can exchange both heat and matter with their surroundings. Portions of the boundary between the open system and its surroundings may be impermeable and/or adiabatic, however at least part of this boundary is subject to heat and mass exchange with the surroundings. The ocean would be an example of an open system. “
(http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics)

Types of Systems

Open System: A system that can exchange both matter and energy with the surroundings

Closed System: A system that can exchange energy, but not matter with the surroundings

Isolated System: A system that cannot exchange either matter or energy with the surroundings”
(http://www.ncusd203.org/north/depts/science/chem/marek/apintropage/ap_notes/chapter7/chapter7.htm)

”Isolated, closed and open systems. Isolated systems are ones in which no energy or matter is exchanged with the outside. For all intents and purposes this means the known universe. A closed system is one, which can exchange energy but not matter, and an open system can exchange both energy and matter.”
(http://www.biochem.usyd.edu.au/~gareth/BCHM2001/mguss/lecture7.html)

DNAunion: That took all of 5 minutes to find and post.

************************************

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: Perhaps Lucaspa will believe Stephen Hawking.

"A precise statement of this idea is known as the second law of thermodynamics. It states that the entropy of an isolated system always increases, and that when two systems are joined together, the entropy of the combined system is greater than the sum of the entropies of the individual systems.” (emphasis added, Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time: Updated and Expanded Edition, Bantom Books, 1996, p130)

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: Or perhaps Lucaspa will believe John Gribbin.

“Entropy: A measure of the amount of disorder in the Universe, or the availability of energy to do work. As energy is degraded into heat, it is less able to do work, and the amount of disorder in the Universe increases. This corresponds to an increase in entropy. In a closed system, entropy never decreases, so the Universe as a whole is slowly dying. In an open system, (for example, a growing flower), entropy can decrease and order can increase, but only at the expense of a decrease in
order and an increase in entropy somewhere else (in this case, in the Sun, which is supplying the energy that the plant feeds off).” (Q is for Quantum: An Encyclopedia of Particle Physics, John Gribbin, Free Press, 1998, p126)

DNAunion: John Gribbin is looking at only two classes of systems: open and closed. His closed system is the same as an isolated system.

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: Here's Stephen Hawking again.

“The explanation that is usually given as to why we don’t see broken cups gathering themselves together off the floor and jumping back onto the table is that it is forbidden by the second law of thermodynamics. This says that in any closed system disorder, or entropy, always increases with time." (bold added, Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time: Updated and Expanded Edition, Bantom Books, 1996, p184)

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: Perhaps Lucaspa will believe John Barrow.

“Let us assume that one of the central principles governing Nature, the second law of thermodynamics, which tells us that the total entropy (disorder) of a closed system can never decrease, governs the evolution from cycle to cycle [of a continually “rebounding” universe].” (bold added, John D. Barrow, The Book of Nothing: Vacuums, Voids, and the Latest Ideas about the Origins of the Universe, Pantheon Books, 2000, p292-293)

DNAunion: Again, in this quote, closed = isolated.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 06:38 PM DNAunion said this in Post #38





DNAunion: Nope, the original poster was correct. Total entropy always increases or remains constant in a closed (isolated) system: the surroundings are irrelevant here.

Since you are going to argue semantics, let's go back to the original.

"The Second law of Thermodynamics (The law of Entropy) :The entropy function always increases in the presence of internal irreversibilities for an adiabatic, closed system. In the limiting case of an internally reversible, adiabatic process, the entropy will remain constant.

Entropy (disorder) always increases or remains constant in a closed system.

Somewhat correct but not quite. For a system, the total entropy of the systems <B>and its</B> <B>surroundings</B> must increase."

The point here, DNAunion, is that entropy increases whenever the system and surroundings are considered.&nbsp; In "open" systems you still get an increase in entropy when you consider both&nbsp;the system and&nbsp; the surroundings.&nbsp; Now, if you consider the total system you will have a closed system, but the subsystems will be "open".&nbsp; The poster's claim was too narrow.

Creationists look only at the system of biological organisms and claim that entropy can't increase, therefore evolution is false.&nbsp; However, as Barrow points out, when considering entropy, you have to consider both the system you are looking at and the surroundings.&nbsp; When you do that, then entropy increases and there is no violation of SLOT.

Now, Gibb's free energy provides a way for entropy to decrease in an adiabatic, closed chemical system as long as enthalpy is more negative.&nbsp; Thus, in solution single strand DNA will spontaneously and adiabatically form a double strand with less entropy by the release of enthalpy due to the formation of hydrogen bonds.

What you call a closed or, more correctly isolated system, is a system that includes all surroundings as defined by Barrow.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 07:36 PM DNAunion said this in Post #49

&nbsp;total entropy will always increase or remain constant in a closed (isolated) system.

That was never in doubt, DNAunion.&nbsp; How did you&nbsp;think that I was arguing the opposite?

The point is that just talking about "closed" systems is too narrow.&nbsp; Entropy applies to all systems, open or isolated.&nbsp; That is why Barrow makes the point about discussing that the "system" is what is being looked at closely.&nbsp; The surroundings are important.&nbsp; Even tho you view decreased entropy in a "system", you will always find that the entropy of the system and the surroundings increase.

Now, when you construct a "closed" system, you have included all the surroundings in the system, just as Barrow states.

"The combination of the system and its surroundings correspond to an "isolated system","


&nbsp;

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Let me try to explain again and perhaps clear up the confusion if I can.

As has been pointed out, there are three types of systems usually defined in chemistry, for instance in Barrow which I also used as an undergrad way back when and as quoted by DNAunion on the previous page with more detail.

Open: exhanges matter and energy with the environment
Closed: exchanges energy but not matter
Isolated: exchanges nothing

The confusion arises because when engineers or physicists refer to a closed system&nbsp;they often mean a system that is adiabatically closed.&nbsp; This means that no heat flows in&nbsp;or out of the system, thus an adiabatically closed system is an isolated system. &nbsp;Sometimes isolated systems are alternatively referred to as closed systems with athermal boundaries which means the same thing.&nbsp; Badfish in the original post specifically referred to an adiabatically closed system at one point but then wrote

Entropy (disorder) always increases or remains constant in a closed system.

This statement is only correct because he said he was talking about an adiabatically closed system in the preceding paragraph. Read without this qualifier the statement is not correct. I assume that this is the source of the misunderstanding.&nbsp; I thought badfish was wrong when I saw the statement at a first glance but then I saw that he said adiabatically closed so the statment is correct since it is obvious that he meant the adibatically closed system he had just referred to above.

I prefer the terminology, open, closed and isolated but&nbsp;sometimes&nbsp;physicists&nbsp;mean adiabatically closed, or isolated when they simply say closed.&nbsp;

I &nbsp;don't want to seem to be arguing from my own authority but I have spent quite a bit of time studying, working with, &nbsp;and occasionally teaching thermo over the years.&nbsp; The interesting thing is that if I read either lucaspa's or DNAunion's posts in isolation (pun intended) I don't see that either of them is formally wrong. Lucaspa is right that for closed systems as defined in physical chemistry and even in a quote that DNAunion posted, &nbsp;you must consider the system and the surroundings and that the system and the surroundings make the isolated system, however DNAunion is right that closed systems that are adiabatically closed which is what he&nbsp;means by closed(isolated) do not interact with their surroundings and that for such systems entropy is constant or must increase.&nbsp;&nbsp;They&nbsp;almost seem to be making a deliberate effort to misunderstand each other here.&nbsp;

A note to DNAunion: When you write closed(isolated) system as you have , I think you&nbsp;may be&nbsp;adding to the confusion a bit.&nbsp; I know what you mean but not everyone may. &nbsp;If you are going to call a closed system isolated you should specify that it is adiabatically closed especially when you give&nbsp;the standard&nbsp;definition of a closed system, that is not isolated in&nbsp;a subsequent&nbsp;post.&nbsp;&nbsp;

In any case, as I pointed out it doesn't matter to&nbsp;evolution &nbsp;since the earth is not an isolated system.&nbsp;I don't think&nbsp;it matters&nbsp;to the big bang either even though the expansion of the universe is thought to be adiabatic, since the microwave background&nbsp;is a source&nbsp;tremendous entropy because it is a huge amount of very diffuse energy.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Hope this helps. Maybe I wasn't too clear the first time.&nbsp; (Maybe not this time either but that's about the best I can do.)

The slightly frazzled Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[DNAunion]

Frumious Bandersnatch: [Lucaspa and DNAunion] almost seem to be making a deliberate effort to misunderstand each other here.

DNAunion: No way, Lucaspa and I see eye to eye on everything!

Fruminous Bandersnatch: A note to DNAunion: When you write closed(isolated) system as you have , I think you may be adding to the confusion a bit.

DNAunion: I completely disagree.

The term "closed system" is ambiguous. Qualifying it with isolated, as I did, eliminates the ambiguity and makes it crystal clear which definition of "closed system" is being used.


Now, at this very forum, I have explained to Lucaspa the differences between open, closed, and isolated systems, as well as explaining to him that there are two ways of looking at systems (a dichotomous open/closed manner and a "trichotomous" open/closed/isolated manner), and how each of those individual systems maps to the systems in the other method. He still doesn't seem to get it (though you seem to think it's a matter of mutual misunderstanding between us).

Frumious Bandersnatch: If you are going to call a closed system isolated you should specify that it is adiabatically closed especially when you give the standard definition of a closed system, that is not isolated in a subsequent.

DNAunion: Huh? The first part made sense - though it was wrong - but the last part made little sense.

All I have to say is that a system is isolated - period. Saying it is isolated (1) makes it crystal clear what type of system I am disucssing, and (2) immediately shows that the surroudings are irrelevant to the changes in entropy that occur within that system.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 09:20 PM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #56

Let me try to explain again and perhaps clear up the confusion if I can.


This statement is only correct because he said he was talking about an adiabatically closed system in the preceding paragraph. Read without this qualifier the statement is not correct. I assume that this is the source of the misunderstanding.&nbsp; I thought badfish was wrong when I saw the statement at a first glance but then I saw that he said adiabatically closed so the statment is correct since it is obvious that he meant the adibatically closed system he had just referred to above.

...
Hope this helps. Maybe I wasn't too clear the first time.&nbsp; (Maybe not this time either but that's about the best I can do.)

The slightly frazzled Frumious Bandersnatch

I appreciate the attempt to clarify. My disagreement with Badfish's post was not that he was&nbsp;technically incorrect in his statement: he was technically correct.

My disagreement was that the statement was too narrow, allowing Badfish to point to decreasing entropy in biological organisms and claiming that this violated SLOT.&nbsp;&nbsp;What Badfish would be doing then was focussing on a system and ignoring the surroundings, thus implying that biological organisms are isolated systems.&nbsp;&nbsp;And then you would have to argue about the difference between closed and open systems, seemingly making exceptions to SLOT to save evolution.&nbsp; I've seen the tactic before. The end result is to make evolutionists seem to change physical laws to allow evolution.

Instead, entropy applies to all systems.&nbsp; Life is not an exception.&nbsp; The reason it is not is&nbsp;because all calculations of entropy must consider not only the system being focused on but the surroundings.&nbsp; When you do that, what I am saying is that the totality of system and surroundings&nbsp;always increases in entropy, even tho the system decreases.&nbsp;

As Barrow says, an "isolated system" is simply a special case of system and surroundings where they have been combined.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 10:11 PM DNAunion said this in Post #57

All I have to say is that a system is isolated - period. Saying it is isolated (1) makes it crystal clear what type of system I am disucssing, and (2) immediately shows that the surroudings are irrelevant to the changes in entropy that occur within that system.

That last is a bit redundant, since an isolated system includes the surroundings.

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: Lucaspa, note that your own author used double quotes around the term isolated system.

Lucaspa [quoting material]: “The combination of the system and its surroundings correspond to an "isolated system"...

DNAunion: Double quotes around a term typically indicates nonstandard usage.

What that author gave is not a definition of an isolated system. If you want one, reread the posts I made earlier tonight in this thread - you'll find several.