On 9 November 2014 06:36, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 11:14 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > The universe could potentially start in a state of maximum entropy (at >> least in terms of the equilibrium of mass-energy) >> > > That just means everything is at the same temperature, but that's not the > only thing that determines Entropy. >
Correct, which is why I've been banging on at length about gravity. > > > and still move to states where things can happen >> > > I don't see how, disordered states outnumber ordered ones by a factor of > astronomical to the astronomical power, so however the laws of physics > effect things as they are today by tomorrow things will almost certainly be > in one of those very numerous more disordered states. > Because expansion raises the entropy ceiling. It's effectively free order. > > >> > if there are *any* inhomogeneities >> > > If there were inhomogeneities in the early universe then it wasn't at > maximum entropy > True. Quantum theory says it can't be. > > > the AOT can be handled by the entropy ceiling being continually raised, >> > > If that were true things would never run down, but they do. The second law > of thermodynamics doesn't say that Entropy must always increase, it says > Entropy will increase until it gets as high as it can go, the heat death of > the universe. And maximum Entropy means a state of zero order, zero > predictability and zero free energy (work); they can't become less than > zero because the concepts of negative order, negative predictability and > negative work are not well defined. > Expansion raises the ceiling, so entropy can increase indefinitely. But the rate at which the ceiling is raised slows with the scale of the universe, hence the universe gets closer and closer to heat death but never quite reaches it as long as expansion continues. Similar to how the big bang fireball never quite reaches equilibrium at any point because of expansion. > > > almost regardless of initial conditions. >> > > Initial conditions are every bit as important as the laws of physics. > Yes initial conditions are "as important", but that misses what I'm saying. Part of the project of science is to either explain how initial conditions got fine tuned or to show that fine tuned initial conditions aren't necessary. The idea I'm suggesting takes the latter approach. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
