The universe expands. Entropy increases.
In an article on the arrow of time, Thomas Gold suggested the two are related (p. 86, 1958 Solvay Institute, The structure and evolution of the universe). As the universe ages (entropy increases) the available degrees of freedom for the constituents of the universe increase. The possible number of states of the universe increases along with entropy. With more states, more of those states might include the emergence of life.
On the other hand, as matter becomes more dispersed in some later stage of the expansion, the chances of life emerging may diminish. In the age of the universe there may be a Goldilocks time era, not too early and not too late.
Your views?
I will say that today the universe is so large and so empty that the increase in entropy by expansion does more bad than good, specially for panspermia paradigm.
Life did not came out from a giant entropy bath, but from localized favourable conditions on surface of planets; and those didn't arise by sheer random fluctuations but from specific emergent physics. The amount of surface of planets today seems independent with universe expansion/contraction.
There can be other arguments, like if the universe doesn't expand, we should have a lot (too much) light and radiation from all stars in the sky.
On big bang times, expansion may have been crucial for the formation of atoms etc.
Interesting considerations on this topic may be found in the article by Lawrence M. Krauss and Glenn D. Starkman, Astrophys. J. 531 (2000) 22-30.
The so-called "entropy " doesn't exist at all.
During the process of deriving the so-called entropy, in fact, ΔQ/T can not be turned into dQ/T. That is, the so-called "entropy " doesn't exist at all.
The so-called entropy was such a concept that was derived by mistake in history.
It is well known that calculus has a definition,
any theory should follow the same principle of calculus; thermodynamics, of course, is no exception, for there's no other calculus at all, this is common sense.
Based on the definition of calculus, we know:
to the definite integral ∫T f(T)dQ, only when Q=F(T), ∫T f(T)dQ=∫T f(T)dF(T) is meaningful.
As long as Q is not a single-valued function of T, namely, Q=F( T, X, …), then,
∫T f(T)dQ=∫T f(T)dF(T, X, …) is meaningless.
1) Now, on the one hand, we all know that Q is not a single-valued function of T, this alone is enough to determine that the definite integral ∫T f(T)dQ=∫T 1/TdQ is meaningless.
2) On the other hand, In fact, Q=f(P, V, T), then
∫T 1/TdQ = ∫T 1/Tdf(T, V, P)= ∫T dF(T, V, P) is certainly meaningless. ( in ∫T , T is subscript ).
We know that dQ/T is used for the definite integral ∫T 1/TdQ, while ∫T 1/TdQ is meaningless, so, ΔQ/T can not be turned into dQ/T at all.
that is, the so-called "entropy " doesn't exist at all.
Why did the wrong "entropy" appear ?
In summary , this was due to the following two reasons:
1) Physically, people didn't know Q=f(P, V, T).
2) Mathematically, people didn't know AΔB couldn‘t become AdB directely .
If people knew any one of them, the mistake of entropy would not happen in history.
Please read my paper and those answers of the questions related to my paper in my Projects.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230554936_Entropy_A_concept_that_is_not_a_physical_quantity
Logical error of the second law of thermodynamics:
1. There are many kinds of type 2 perpetual motion machines. Behind each type is a natural phenomenon.
Machine A: against the irreversibility of thermodynamics (diffusion, heat conduction, friction, etc) - dynamics;
Machine B: Utilizing the Difference of Carnot Efficiency (Reversible Thermodynamics) - Thermodynamics
2. A and B belong to different disciplines. There is a parallel relationship between them, and there is no logical mutual inevitability.
Heat 2 Logic: Experience induction, deny that A machine==》 B machine can not be manufactured==》 All material Kano efficiency: 1-T1/T2.
3. Logical of the second law of thermodynamics violates the physical logic that A and B cannot be inferred from each other.
4. the second law of thermodynamics elevates the "irreversibility", but it is only a kinetic experience.
5. See the annex for details.
Yes, entropy does not exist in the real (quantum) world, it is just a tool we have invented to make some prediction from our macroscopic, limited knowledge.
Maybe this tool will go out of fashion, maybe will survive.
For me mathematics is just a tool for physics; formulas and laws are approximations, not the ultimate definition of the actual world.
Therefore you can find as many logical inconsistencies as you want, between "working" laws.
Please be tolerant with physicists, tipically we don't actually know what we are doing!
The idea that entropy actually do not exist i think is important for life - as all complexity must be there from the beginning.
Quantitative prediction of the second law of thermodynamics is inaccurate?
Quantitative prediction of the second law of thermodynamics is inaccurate. Scientists can hardly ride on tigers and only rely on fraud to maintain.The second law of thermodynamics is "irreversible", "dissipation" and "statistics". In fact, we should be concerned about whether the quantitative calculation of the second law of thermodynamics is correct. Here is the Clapellon formula.(dP/dT)*T=λ/(V1-V2) - - the same as in figure 7-2-21. This is the Clapellon formula, which involves vapor pressure, gas-liquid density, and heat of gasification.2. Vapor pressure and gas-liquid density are easy to measure accurately, but the heat of vaporization is difficult to measure.According to Clapellon's formula, the vaporization heat is calculated by using vapor pressure and gas-liquid density, which shows the theoretical value.3. Later, with the development of instruments and the increase of accurate measurement data of gasification heat, it was found that the vaporization heat calculated earlier by Law 2 was not accurate. See the following figure - "Properties of Gases and Liquids"4. The second law of thermodynamics disappoints everyone.5. However, the vapor pressure, gas-liquid density and gasification heat on the enthalpy-entropy chart satisfy the Clapellon formula. This is done by sorting out the data. To put it plainly, it's fraud. Scientists are also difficult to ride on tigers. They only rely on fraud to maintain.
- Badges
- Science topic