Big Crunch

[quixata]

I have a confusion (may be vague) regarding the Big Crunch.
If Big Crunch is true then at some point time in the future, universe will start contracting till it becomes a singularity.
That means, during contraction and till it becomes a singularity, the disorder in the universe will gradually decrease and finally it will be 0.
Doesn't this contradict the second law of thermodynamics?

Q

[jinydu]

Well presumably, the Big Crunch would have to occur in a disorderly, asymmetrical way. The Big Bang, by contrast, was (almost) symmetric in all directions.

I have read that in General Relativity, the Big Bang instant and the Big Crunch instant are singularities; points where the theory predicts that some quantities can take on infinite values. Thus, we can't really talk about what happens at t = 0, but instead take the limit as t approaches 0. I guess this is sort of analogous to singularities of functions. For instance, the function f(x) = 1/x has a singularity at x = 0.

I have to admit, I'm not personally very familiar with this issue. Maybe you could try looking into this more using online searches?

[Keiji]

Doesn't this contradict the second law of thermodynamics?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that heat always moves from hot things to cold things. How exactly does this imply the universe must always get more disorderly?

[jinydu]

Doesn't this contradict the second law of thermodynamics?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that heat always moves from hot things to cold things. How exactly does this imply the universe must always get more disorderly?

Actually, another form of the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system can never decrease with time. Entropy refers to the number of possible states a system can take. Roughly speaking, entropy (a well-defined physical quantity) corresponds to what we usually think of as disorder (which is a bit of a vague term).

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... eclaw.html
(scroll down to the bottom)

[thigle]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that heat always moves from hot things to cold things. How exactly does this imply the universe must always get more disorderly?

>it doesn't. it merely states (undercover) that life cannot exist - heart-beat cannot arise and body-warmth should dissipate. it defies in.telligence by rationality/logic. in other words, it confuses energy(what) with information(how) and assume a principle for this confused melange - everything is fading... heat, life, cosmos. but, if this nihilism is passed, concept of syntropy, or of 'negative entropy' becomes apparent by its non-appearance.

to sum up, concept of entropy is a belief that on all levels/scales of organization of logicANDphysic phenomena, a law appplies which states that order of closed system continually de-creases. however, that is just an inflation (over-applying) of reductionist distinction, made on part of available phenomenal spectrum, then forced on the whole spectrum (or rather, discrediting parts of spectrum which contradict it - like consciousness, for ex.), establishing improper exclusivity.

anyway, 'islands' of syntropy are intelligence. taking us as examples, our organizational knowledge-base is syntropic. some other aspects of our existence are localy entropic (ex.: gross bodies). some cannot be discerned within syn/en.tropic duality.

just google web for 'negative entropy', or 'syntropy'

?:
entropy = (-) state of ordering [of a closed system]
syntropy = (+) state of ordering [of a closed system]
?isotropy? (any other suggestions?) = nondual beyond the limits of 'closed-system paradigm'

jmho :twisted:

Edit by iNVERTED: fixed your quote

[jinydu]

>it doesn't. it merely states (undercover) that life cannot exist - heart-beat cannot arise and body-warmth should dissipate. it defies in.telligence by rationality/logic. in other words

That is a common, but incorrect, claim often made by non-scientists. The Second Law doesn't state that the entropy of all parts of an isolated system (such as the Universe) must increase, only that the net entropy of an isolated system must increase. Thus, it is possible for some parts of the system to become more ordered over time, so long as this decrease in entropy comes at the expense of a equal or greater increase of entropy elsewhere in the system.

The Earth is not a closed system; it receives energy from the Sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation. Thus, while the entropy of some systems on Earth may decrease (such as organisms getting more complex), this is more than compensated by the increase of entropy in and around the Sun.

[thigle]

that is a common, but incorrect, claim often made by scientists. syntropy was given much thought (among others) by giants like von Bertalanffy, Feynman, Prigogine, Fantappie ...

i found this in my quotes_in.dex, but unfortunately don't know the source anymore (credits anyway)
"...physical and chemical phenomena...determined by causes placed in the past, ... governed by the law of entropy, while all...phenomena...attracted towards causes which are placed in the future (attractors), ...governed by a law ...symmetrical to entropy ...named syntropy..."

actually, already on a level where you accept existence of dissipative structures, and their fundamental difference from entropic phenomena, syntropy is obvious.

and there are no closed systems as such in reality anyway. so concept of entropy is funded on approximation. it seems sad to me that people tend to stick to exclusivity of entropy so much, without admitting themselves.

[jinydu]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, along with the crucial notion of entropy, is based on a rigorous and precise mathematical theory and backed by a very large body of evidence, both theoretical and experimental.

By contrast, I've never heard of the word "syntropy" until you made that post. It certainly hasn't showed up in any science textbooks or articles that I've ever read.

that is a common, but incorrect, claim often made by scientists.

I trust scientists to understand science far better than non-scientists do.

and there are no closed systems as such in reality anyway. so concept of entropy is funded on approximation.

It is possible to set up experiments where the energy that leaves or enters the system is very small compared to the energy changes that are being measured in the system. In these cases, the system can be treated as closed to a good enough level of approximation to observe what needs to be observe.

And there is one system that is perfectly isolated: the entire Universe.

[thigle]

jinydu. on the one hand you tend to hide behind 'science', rigorosity and precision (plus you exclude subjectivity from the realm of science). by contrast, you are just subjective, confused, and unprecise in your knowing (science):
subjective: ('I trust...') well, exactly !
confused: '...scientists to know science...) well, the aim of science is not to know science. can you think of any better objectives for science then self-reference ? realize that world is not here because of science, it is science that could evolve in here beacuse of what is already as it is. science doesn't qualify nature.
unprecise: you quote me: 'there are no closed systems as such in reality anyway. so concept of entropy is funded on approximation'. then you state '...possible to set up experiments where the energy that leaves or enters the system is very small compared to the energy changes that are being measured in the system. In these cases, the system can be treated as closed to a good enough level of approximation ... well, not good enough. very small is NOT none. if approximative method would not be found to be just that - an approximation, no relativity or quantum physics would be here at all and we would be still stuck with good old newtonian physics.

plus: 'there is one system that is completely isolated: the entire Universe.' well, this one really made me crack up. i had a tasty belly-tingling laugh. thanx :wink: (you are not really serious with this one, are you.?!)

please, try to understand what science is as such, how it appeared and then established, in western world-view first, then on this whole planet, and especially what its relationship with being and existence as such is. that you never heard of syntropy is prolly just a result of your own ignorance of anything that doesn't fit to what you consider (or was taught) science to be, or perhaps you just simply aren't that well in.formed yet.
if rigidity of you-like unfree mind would prevail, we would still be running exclusively on euclidean geometries. (you know, at the time, it was not in the textbooks...)

[quixata]

I was going through all the posts with the arguments and counter arguments from jinydu and thigle.
It is quiet interesting to me as a common man.
My field of study is not higher physics and it is only natural that I cannot understand everything that is said here.But the beauty of the subject brings me back to these discussions again and again.

Science, as my understanding goes, is just a tool that helps us to search.
From the beginning, we are trying to figure out the relationships between our existance and the universe. Science and the scientific methods are just armery that we have. Development of science takes us closer to the goal inch by inch...but we do have miles and miles to go!

There are many theories in science and some them contradict each other.
It is true that it is not possible for one to follow each one of those.
But the essence here is to have an open mind.
That someone does not believe in something which I strongly believe - does not make the other person or her belief any less.

Finally, let me confess that I too have never heard the term 'syntropy'.
I found a number of sites on the concept by searching in google today.
Not that I understand the concept very well now. I do not expect that either. But the ideas such as this keeps reminding me that whatever little I know correctly is not the only direction in which science progreeses.
It should and it is progressing towards and beyond the realm of a common man like me and finally, it is beautiful in itself...the process of our search.

Q

[jinydu]

(plus you exclude subjectivity from the realm of science).

Indeed I do. Science has to be replicable: If someone else does the same experiment using the same methodology, he should get the same results as you do. If not, at least one of you are wrong.

by contrast, you are just subjective, confused, and unprecise in your knowing (science):

Well, let's deal with those one by one. However, please remember that the centerpiece of science (or at least physics) is mathematics. Since I have not yet used any equations in this thread (except in the second post of the thread, and I don't think that one really counts, since I was only using the function 1/x as an example), it should be quite clear to you that I haven't shown the full extent of what I know about science.

subjective: ('I trust...') well, exactly !

You don't like the word trust? How about I know?

confused: '...scientists to know science...) well, the aim of science is not to know science.

If you don't like that phrase, how about "scientists to understand scientific theories". Then, you go on to talk about the "aim of science", which is not what I was talking about anyway. What I said was a response to your phrase "that is a common, but incorrect, claim often made by scientists". Apparently, you were referring to a claim I made in my previous post, although it is not clear which claim you were referring to. However, it appears that there are two likely possibilities:

1) "The Second Law doesn't state that the entropy of all parts of an isolated system (such as the Universe) must increase, only that the net entropy of an isolated system must increase." If you don't think that I reported the Second Law correctly, maybe you'll be more inclined to believe the Georgia State University's Department of Physics and Astronomy:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... eclaw.html

2) "The Earth is not a closed system; it receives energy from the Sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation." Perhaps you would like to dispute that the Earth receives energy from the Sun? Or that the Sun's entropy increases due to this process?

can you think of any better objectives for science then self-reference ?

Since we're on this subject now; yes, I can think of a better objective. The goal of science is to provide precise and accurate descriptions of natural phenomena using the scientific method.

realize that world is not here because of science,

If by that, you mean "the world is not here because scientists have developed scientific theories", then I certainly agree. If you mean "the world is not here because there exist natural laws that can be discovered using the scientific method", then I certainly disagree.

unprecise: you quote me: 'there are no closed systems as such in reality anyway. so concept of entropy is funded on approximation'. then you state '...possible to set up experiments where the energy that leaves or enters the system is very small compared to the energy changes that are being measured in the system. In these cases, the system can be treated as closed to a good enough level of approximation ... well, not good enough. very small is NOT none.

Unfortunately, any quantitative physical measurement (except counting) has some amount of uncertainty. However, you conveniently left out the rest of my sentence: "... good enough level of approximation to observe what needs to be observe(d)" (I did forget that d in my original post). Suppose you want to show that the specific heat capacity of some substance is, say (967 +- 1) J kg^-1 K^-1. An exact measurement, with absolutely no approximation, would not be required.

if approximative method would not be found to be just that - an approximation, no relativity or quantum physics would be here at all and we would be still stuck with good old newtonian physics.

For centuries, the predictions of Newtonian physics approximately agreed with experimental results; the difference between the two was sufficiently small that it could be attributed to experimental error. However, near the turn of the 20th century, various experiments produced results that differed wildly from the predictions of Newton (or more accurately, Newton + Maxwell + many other scientists). The approximations from Newton's theory were so poor that the discrepancies with experimental results could not be attributed to experimental error. Therefore, new theories (relativity and quantum mechanics) came to be accepted.

plus: 'there is one system that is completely isolated: the entire Universe.' well, this one really made me crack up. i had a tasty belly-tingling laugh. thanx :wink: (you are not really serious with this one, are you.?!)

Of course the Universe is isolated! By definition, the Universe is everything that exists. Things cannot enter or leave the Universe, since there is no "outside", by definition.

please, try to understand what science is as such, how it appeared and then established, in western world-view first, then on this whole planet,

As a matter of fact, I've read two "history of science" books, hundreds of pages each. They detailed the development of many important scientific theories.

and especially what its relationship with being and existence as such is. that you never heard of syntropy is prolly just a result of your own ignorance of anything that doesn't fit to what you consider (or was taught) science to be, or perhaps you just simply aren't that well in.formed yet.

Ok, I must concede that I am not yet a professional scientist. Currently, I am an undergraduate student at UCLA who has just finished his freshman year. My major is mathematics, but I have also taken 2 physics courses, and I plan to take more in the future.

I may not be an expert in physics, but I do understand at least the basics of the major theories in physics (classical mechanics, theory of waves, kinetic theory of gases, relativity, quantum mechanics) and how results are derived mathematically (not through vague inferences).

Hopefully, you realize that vague statements (such as the popular statement of Newton's Third Law: "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction") are not the theory itself, but a convenient way of explaining the general ideas of the theory to non-scientists, who would be confused by the precise statements. To again use Newton's Third Law as an example, the precise statement (the one that Newton himself actually wrote and used) is in fact an equation relating two vectors, the force of one object on a second object, and the force of the second object on the first. Unfortunately, some people read the popular statement and think they've understood "Newton's Third Law", when all they've really understood is a "watered-down version", if you will. Similarly, entropy is popularly defined to mean "disorder", but this is not the real definition that is used by people who study and use the theory. The real definition is k * ln (omega), where k is Boltzmann's constant and (omega) is the number of possible states of the system.

if rigidity of you-like unfree mind would prevail, we would still be running exclusively on euclidean geometries. (you know, at the time, it was not in the textbooks...)

Your grammar is rather awkward there, but I'll assume you meant that if everyone thought like me, nobody would know about non-Euclidean geometries. However, you are mistaken because:

1) The discoverers of non-Euclidean geometries followed the valid rules of reasoning. They started with a non-conventional but consistent set of assumptions (for instance, that given any line and a point not on the line, it is possible to draw infinitely many lines through the point that are parallel to the original line), and through a chain of logical deductions, managed to prove theorems (ex. if two triangles are similar, they must be congruent). What they did not do is throw down vague ideas like "space is curved". In fact, I've read some non-Euclidean geometry proofs. Have you?

2) For every valid new idea, there are a thousand new ideas that are just plain wrong. Of course, we don't hear about these wrong ones because, well, they're wrong! In order to seperate the genuine new discoverers from the "cranks", the burden is placed on the would-be discoverers to demonstrate the validity of their new ideas. The discoverers of non-Euclidean geometry did indeed meet this requirement; in fact, it was proved that if Euclidean geometry is consistent, then the non-Euclidean geometries must also be consistent. In physics, a would-be discoverer typically must show that a) His new idea is consistent of known experimental results, b) His idea leads to predictions that are testable experimentally, c) His idea is logically consistent, etc..

3) Non-Euclidean did eventually make it's way into the textbooks. But before the consistency proof, it's validity was questioned by some mathematicians. But that is the way mathematics (and the scientific method) is supposed to work: All new ideas are scrutinized. Correct ideas survive this scrutiny and become accepted, incorrect ideas don't.