Недоразумения в представлениях об энтропии

Основные недоразумения в понимании проблем возникновения жизни, эволюции с позиции физики и физической химии, как правило, связаны с неверными представлениями об энтропии. Этот термин ввел Рудольф Клаузиус. Свое «модельное» представление о мире (Вселенной) он представил в виде высказывания: «Энергия мира постоянна. Энтропия мира стремиться к максимуму». В дальнейшем это высказывание Дж. У. Гиббс выбрал в качестве эпиграфа к работе «О равновесии гетерогенных веществ». Упомянутые ученые сделали приведенное высказывание применительно к своей модели Вселенной. Эта модель соответствует простой изолированной системе идеального газа, т.е. изолированной системе идеального газа, энергия и объем которой постоянны и в которой не совершается никакой работы, или совершается только работа расширения. Энтропия такой системы может только возрастать!

Следует заметить, что если говорить о подобной модели, которая соответствовала бы реальной Вселенной, необходимо было бы принять недоказуемое предположение о том, что все виды энергии реальной Вселенной перейдут в тепловую энергию. Только в этом случае, к тому же при дополнительных нереальных предположениях, Вселенная могла бы превратиться в «модельную систему» Клаузиуса – Гиббса.

Однако любители науки и дилетанты распространили рассматриваемое утверждение на системы других типов, в которых имеют место взаимодействия различной природы между частицами (молекулами или объектами других иерархий) и которые (системы) взаимодействуют с окружающей средой. Подобных ошибок не избежали некоторые ученые, не являющиеся профессионалами в соответствующих областях знания. Это привело к невообразимой путанице и затормозило, более чем на столетие, развитие науки. Появились сотни тысяч публикаций в научных журналах и популярной литературе, содержащие отмеченные недоразумения. К этим недоразумениям прибавились некорректные представления о негоэнтропии и «диссипативных структурах в живом мире».

Возникновение жизни и ее эволюция легко объяснимы с позиции иерархической термодинамики близких к равновесию сложных динамических систем. Эта термодинамика создана на прочном фундаменте классической (равновесной) термодинамики – термодинамики Рудольфа Клаузиуса, Дж. У. Гиббса и других великих творцов. http://www.membrana.ru/particle/17266

http://www.eoht.info/page/Entropy+%28misinterpretations%29 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYr1G5TZO50

Детализация теории происхождения жизни и эволюции представлена на новых сайтах (сайты Knol перемещены на Wordpress): Некоторые работы: http://gladyshevevolution.wordpress.com/

http://creatacad.org/?id=48&lng=eng

Cory

We posted an article to our blog the Imagineer's Chronicles "Gravity vers entropy" that may provide you with some answers

>

Please post if you need more info

Jeff

There are many explanations, See for instance Frampton's papers hep-th/0610213, hep-th/0703162, astro-ph/0612243 etc.

Thanks, this is some good stuff. I realize now that my assumption has flaws, specifically regarding the fact that the system probably couldn't reach a real singularity more than once (at t=0), if at all (at least in this space).

This also goes against the second law as it is defined for our closed universe, so I guess I would be saying that the universe isn't a completely closed system.

Недоразумения в представлениях об энтропии

Основные недоразумения в понимании проблем возникновения жизни, эволюции с позиции физики и физической химии, как правило, связаны с неверными представлениями об энтропии. Этот термин ввел Рудольф Клаузиус. Свое «модельное» представление о мире (Вселенной) он представил в виде высказывания: «Энергия мира постоянна. Энтропия мира стремиться к максимуму». В дальнейшем это высказывание Дж. У. Гиббс выбрал в качестве эпиграфа к работе «О равновесии гетерогенных веществ». Упомянутые ученые сделали приведенное высказывание применительно к своей модели Вселенной. Эта модель соответствует простой изолированной системе идеального газа, т.е. изолированной системе идеального газа, энергия и объем которой постоянны и в которой не совершается никакой работы, или совершается только работа расширения. Энтропия такой системы может только возрастать!

Следует заметить, что если говорить о подобной модели, которая соответствовала бы реальной Вселенной, необходимо было бы принять недоказуемое предположение о том, что все виды энергии реальной Вселенной перейдут в тепловую энергию. Только в этом случае, к тому же при дополнительных нереальных предположениях, Вселенная могла бы превратиться в «модельную систему» Клаузиуса – Гиббса.

Однако любители науки и дилетанты распространили рассматриваемое утверждение на системы других типов, в которых имеют место взаимодействия различной природы между частицами (молекулами или объектами других иерархий) и которые (системы) взаимодействуют с окружающей средой. Подобных ошибок не избежали некоторые ученые, не являющиеся профессионалами в соответствующих областях знания. Это привело к невообразимой путанице и затормозило, более чем на столетие, развитие науки. Появились сотни тысяч публикаций в научных журналах и популярной литературе, содержащие отмеченные недоразумения. К этим недоразумениям прибавились некорректные представления о негоэнтропии и «диссипативных структурах в живом мире».

Возникновение жизни и ее эволюция легко объяснимы с позиции иерархической термодинамики близких к равновесию сложных динамических систем. Эта термодинамика создана на прочном фундаменте классической (равновесной) термодинамики – термодинамики Рудольфа Клаузиуса, Дж. У. Гиббса и других великих творцов. http://www.membrana.ru/particle/17266

http://www.eoht.info/page/Entropy+%28misinterpretations%29 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYr1G5TZO50

Детализация теории происхождения жизни и эволюции представлена на новых сайтах (сайты Knol перемещены на Wordpress): Некоторые работы: http://gladyshevevolution.wordpress.com/

http://creatacad.org/?id=48&lng=eng

I think the reading of the paper attached here could shed light over the issue posed by you

Article Statistical Mechanical Theory of a Closed Oscillating Universe

Just a comment: Part of you question was, whether the laws of physics might change during contraction. Remember that entropy is a principle, not a physical law.

Thank you for your input, all. I haven't gotten to all of this stuff yet, but I've at least looked at most of it, and I have learned a lot already. I'll let you know what's up when I get to your level. Feel free to keep contributing if you'd like.

I suggested above that maybe our universe is in equilibrium with other universe(s) as well. If this were true, then we would share entropy and it would account for instances in which the total entropy of our own universe might not be increasing (like during a crunch). This actually holds with some of these new theories that are popping up. I also might be wrong because I haven't really read it all, but clearly we need some new drastically-simple ideas to ponder on either way.

What if our physical universe is not expanding and red shift is caused by photons loosing energy ?

Whoa, deep thought!

On another note, it looks like multiverse theory has been gaining a whole lot of support recently. While I may have made an amateur hypothesis back in September, I was probably on the right track with the statement as a whole. I have read some things that would suggest Marc is also on the right track, moving the focus not towards expansion/contraction, but in a whole different direction entirely. I'll leave the source hunting up to all of you since a quick Google search didn't turn up anything (I swear I'm not just making this up, though).

We addressed the issue of entropy and collapsing universe in our article "Entropy and Big crunch. Briefly since the universe is by definition a closed system the heat generated by it's gravitational collapse cannot be radiated to another environment. Therefore we feel that the laws of thermodynamics governing entropy when applied on a cosmic scale should be modified to include gravity because it's entropy must decrease if it gravity ever causes it to collapse. Please visit our site " http://www.theimagineershome.com/blog/?p=5355 for a more detail explanation of why this must true.

Nice work! It all makes sense when you compare it to a spring...

One of the commentators said something as well that piqued my imagination (and I believe I have read about the possibility of a flat universe somewhere recently too):

The universe is BY DEFINITION a closed system, but who DEFINED it to be so?

Why should we believe this?

I, for one, do not. Case closed.

(Feel free to keep up the input, though.)

We also addressed the issue of flat universe in our article "Why the is universe flat?"

Briefly we the compare the effects of gravity and the kinetic energy to the crumply of a piece of paper.

"Another way of understanding this concept compare it to the effect crumpling a piece of paper has on its overall flatness. 

Our experiences with a  piece of paper shows us that if one crumples one that was original flat and views its entire surface the overall magnitude of the displacement caused by that crumpling would be zero because the height of it above its surface would be offset by an oppositely directed one below its surface.  Therefore, if one views its overall surface only with respect to its height its curvature would appear to be flat.

Similarly, if the gravitational potential of the universe’s energy/mass is oppositely directed form that of its kinetic energy the "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension would appear to be flat because, similar to a crumpled piece of paper the "depth" of the displacement below its "surface" caused by it would offset by the "height" of the displacement caused by its kinetic energy."

Please reserve judgment until after reading our more comprehensive explanation of the process at http://www.theimagineershome.com/blog/?p=4639

Our universe must be is a closed system if you define it in terms of all that exists.

(Feel free to keep up the input, though.)

Always

Jeff

I see what you mean, and I think what you say is accurate, but I'm suggesting something like black holes being connections to alternate/completely different universes. What if black holes are like the edges/verticies of a higher-dimensional shape or something? This would allow our observable universe to be part of a (probably) infinite multiverse. We most likely won't be able to directly observe another universe in our lifetimes, but this might allow us to break the symmetry within our own "chunk" of the multiverse. The possibility of black holes being akin to wormholes was discussed on the newest Cosmos tonight, so Neil DeGrasse Tyson might agree, though I have obviously made some hefty assumptions/modifications myself. Could this be conceivable?

Sorry for the late response -- I need to change my e-mail address on here.

So I have another new development. I think I fully understand now that some of my position has been that of a devil's advocate. If the universe is truly flat, I feel like there would be no such thing as a "big crunch" at all and entropy just continuously increases (like you have all been saying). Even if there IS such a thing as a "big crunch," maybe entropy can still increase or remain constant because if infinity.exists than infinitesimal also exists. I can finally put this into words. Thank you all for not calling me stupid. Also, in order to add something new to the discussion, maybe black holes are no more than saddle points in the "Grand Function". They sure look like saddle points. Of course, I would like to continue believing that they are something more.

Just as an update, and to expand upon the above statement for those that don't completely understand:

The best graduate definition of increasing entropy in layman's terms (that I can conceptualize up to this point, at least) is the process of fitting a larger amount of information into a smaller volume in a thermodynamically-favorable fashion.

This definition is not quite general enough to be completely mathematically-accurate, but I feel it fits with universal evolution and also explains why a crunch is actually feasible. It also holds true to the S = k*ln(W) equation. If you are not satisfied with the words that I used, then check out Wikipedia because they pretty much have it covered over there.

If anyone has some more insight, this would be a decent place to share it.

The contracting universe would also result in the increase of entropy.

When a crystal is being formed, the entropy (of the closed system) increases as well.

One can see entropy as the number of possible combinations a set of atoms or molecules can provide in a new situation. Situation after situation, the the number of combinations in past situations increases, so entropy adds up.

Once again: Misunderstandings in ideas about entropy

Many misunderstandings in understanding the problems of life and evolution from the standpoint of physics and physical chemistry are typically associated with misconceptions in understanding entropy. The term "entropy" coined Rudolf Clausius. According to his "model" of the world (universe), he presented a statement: "The energy of the world is constant. The entropy of the world tends to the maximum". Later this statement    was chosen by JW Gibbs as an epigraph to the paper "On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances". These scientists have given this statement in relation to their model of the universe. This model corresponds to a simple isolated system of ideal gas, i.e. isolated system of ideal gas, energy and volume of this system are constant and in which only the work of expansion is performed. Entropy of such a system can only increase!

It should be noted that when we say on ideal model, which would correspond to the real universe, it would be necessary to accept the unreal assumption that any form of energy real universe will be transformed into thermal energy. Only in this case, also under additional unrealistic assumptions, the real universe "would turn" into the model of ideal system of Clausius - Gibbs.

However, lovers of science have applied representations on simple systems to systems of other types, in which the interactions takes place between particles of different nature (interactions of molecules or other objects of different hierarchies) and to systems which interact with the environment.  Some scientists, who are not professionals in the relevant fields of knowledge, have not escaped such errors. This has led to unimaginable confusion. This has slowed down the development of science, more than on a century. There are thousands of publications in scientific journals and popular literature containing marked misunderstandings. To these were added incorrect ideas on the negentropy and on the dissipative structures in the living world, and the false identification of "the information entropy" with the thermodynamic entropy.

The origin of life and its evolution can be easily explained from the standpoint of hierarchical near equilibrium thermodynamics of complex dynamic systems. This thermodynamics established on a solid foundation of equilibrium thermodynamics - thermodynamics of Rudolf Clausius, JW Gibbs and other great scientists.

Entropy: A concept that is not a physical quantity

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230554936_Entropy_A_concept_that_is_not_a_physical_quantity