Solar System Formation and Entropy of Universe
Good day from Greece. When our solar system was formed 5 billion
years ago the local entropy of the interstellar space was obviously
decreased. How exactly the total entropy of the universe increased by the
formation of our solar system? If it has been increased due to the fact that
another star had to die as a supernova in order for the solar system to be
formed, you need to take into account that there were no stars at the time
of the big bang. Which brings the question that when the first star was
formed after the big bang, the total entropy of the universe was increased,
thus violating the second law of thermodynamics. What exactly I am thinking
wrong as it is impossible that the above statement is correct?
I think you might be confused about what is entropy. It is common to
think of entropy as 'disorder', but this simple analogy will lead you
astray in many instances. For example, a crystal (highly ordered) may
have more entropy than a solution of salt (which seems less ordered).
So "disorder" is not always a good way to think of entropy.
A better way to think of entropy is the probability of a system of
being in a given configuration. Over time, systems will evolve into
their most probable configuration -- but they may not start there, and
the random motions they take may require a long time to get to the
most probable configuration. The laws of physics govern what
configuration is probably -- things like quantum physics and gravity
determining how systems end up being.
So, in the context of the universe, I think there are still a lot of
questions to be answered about what happened at the very early ages,
and I am not an expert in early-universe physics, but I think it is safe
to say that going from a highly-energetic but uniform state to a
lower-energy, more distributed state (solar systems, etc.) is not a
violation of the second law. The system is progressing toward its most
probable configuration, and human perceptions of "order" or "disorder"
do not necessarily relate back to entropy.
Hope this helps,
What you are missing is particles sent into space. Their dispersal
produced an entropy increase.
When the solar nebula condensed to form our solar system, matter
became more localized, true. But in the process, energy was
released into space, mostly by radiation of photons.
If that had not happened, then the solar nebula could not have
collapsed. The gas molecules and dust motes of the nebula would
collide with each other and rebound with no loss of relative
speed. But since they could lose energy by radiating photons into
space, they could gradually cluster into the bodies now composing
the Solar system.
Richard E. Barrans Jr., Ph.D., M.Ed.
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of Wyoming
Be very careful with the word "obviously" especially applied to a cosmic
scale, and with a situation and state of matter such as the "Big Boom" and
the uncertainty that followed that event(s)??? How do you know it was a
single event. Maybe it was a process, not an event.
The statistical definition of entropy, S, is: S = k x ln (N) where k is
Botzman's constant and N is the density of quantum mechanical states.
But even here it is not clear how "N" is calculated, or even defined. These
are very complicated and arcane topics. It is not even obvious what the
'entropy' of the Universe means. In addition, you assert that: "Which brings
the question that when the first star was formed after the big bang, the
total entropy of the universe was increased, thus violating the second law
of thermodynamics." I challenge you to prove your assertion.
The laws of science are determined by what seems to work, not by what is
always true. We do not know what is always true because we cannot test
every object in every situation. Also, some laws apply to average
effects but not individual particles. You use two premises that might
not be correct.
Our universe is all we know how to measure, but it is not necessarily
all that there is. Some theories include many universes that can
transfer energy between each other. If this is so, we have never
measured it. Laws for transfer between universes do not have to fit the
limits of energy transfer within a universe. We like to think they do,
but laws can change as we understand more things.
Entropy is part of thermodynamics, and thermodynamics is a part of
physics that applies to quantities and effects for large groups of
particles. Even temperature is an average quantities. If the universe
reduces to many particles and waves, then thermodynamics might apply.
If the universe reduces to one huge super-particle, then quantum physics
will have to take over. If you read about string theory and its
problems, you will see that we do not know what happens within a black
hole. General relativity and quantum physics disagree. So far, we have
no way to test it.
Science and engineering are perfect laws to always decide exactly what
happens in the universe. They are fields of study that allow us to
reduce billions of facts to just a few patterns. These patterns are
then reduced to equations whenever possible. The equations allow us to
talk about the patterns and to make better use of the patterns. The
patterns allow us to use what has already been measured to predict
future measurements. So long as the predictions work, the science and
engineering laws work. If they fail enough times, we adjust the
patterns to allow for the new measurements. The laws of science are
very important, but they only apply to what we can measure and are based
only on what has already been measured. They are wonderful, but they
are not everything.
Dr. Ken Mellendorf
Illinois Central College
You have to be very careful of the word "obviously". In cosmology, nothing
(or almost nothing) is "obvious". You leave yourself open to the response,
"Show me why it is obvious?" I give you that challenge. Why is it obvious
that when the first star was formed
after the big bang, the total entropy of the universe was increased? After
the "big bang" space itself was being created, not things floating around
in space. If this is so, and it seems to be the case, it is not clear how
the second law ( a macroscopic variable ) does, or does not apply.
You are tackling a problem that has evaded resolution for decades, or more.
Click here to return to the Physics Archives
Update: June 2012