Does the "heat death" make life possible?

I see you saying a lot of stuff. I still don’t really have a good idea of what you’re actually proposing.

Maybe I’m just bad at comprehending, but reading your top post I see:

4 paragraphs bashing creationists, teachers, scientists and other people who don’t get what you’re about to reveal. In my experience, those are signs that something unscientific will follow. I may be wrong, but I don’t see the point of those 4 paragraphs in any way.

3 paragraphs describing entropy and the fact that most matter we find in planets is made in stars. Nothing wrong with that, but I already knew all that stuff.

2 paragraphs that I don’t get. What are you saying here, and what’s the relevance? I’m talking about this:

2 paragraphs describing that life battles with entropy. Well, duh. By this time, I’m wondering when you’re going to get to the point.

1 paragraph that starts out claiming that heat loss equals entropy. AFAIK, that’s false. The rest seems to be some kind of argument by metaphor or poetry. Not sure what it’s arguing for or against, though:

Then there’s the long-winded conclusion:

Can’t answer this question since I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Still no idea what you’re talking about, but the description of “reductionism” given here seem at least fairly logical, though I’ve no idea if “reductionism” is the correct term for it.

What connection? What “qualifies as an argument for the fine tuning of our universe” and lends “itself to the possibility that nature is more than purely random”?

In our universe, life as we know it is reliant on the death of stars for its components and reliant on processes that increase entropy for its energy. In that sense, it’s trivially true that life is dependent on “heat death”. This is not something that is a new or obscure idea at all. It doesn’t follow that life is inevitable once you have it (though I’m of the opinion that in our universe, life as we know it is pretty much inevitable at the moment; I have no proof of this, by the way).

I still fail to see what you’re arguing. Some kind of intelligence or directed force manifesting itself through the increase in entropy seems to be the closest I can get.

So, in conclusion:

If you want to argue anything, first don’t claim to have special powers of insight that other people lack; it’s irrelevant and makes people unreceptive. Second, don’t include all kinds of information that isn’t relevant. It makes people tired of reading. Third and most importantly, state clearly what it is you are arguing for and then provide some evidence/arguments in favor of your claim. Right now, it looks like you’ve provided neither a claim or any evidence.

Also, it’s fairly easy to imagine a universe in which the 2nd law of thermodynamics isn’t true on the large scale. A universe, for example, that would create enough hydrogen out of a vacuum that no matter the expansion rate of the universe, we’d always have stars and everything else we as humans think is necessary for life. That kind of universe would be a far better environment for life than the one we think we have now, if only because it won’t end.

Hey Superfluous. I tend to suspect that our universe may be cyclical. The heat death is considered a hypothesis and I agree for the reason that we don’t know that upon reaching this heat death state which seems likely, gravity wont condense all this presumably low density stuff into another “Big Bang seed.”

Am I bashing Creationists and scientists? I don’t think so. I am often mistaken for a Creationist when I am not saying the same thing that they are; that life is a miracle in a disordered universe. I have found agreement in my observation from those who are more truly invested in science than among laypersons, such as my friend, David, who teaches astronomy. He assures me that, yes, the death of a star is considered to be large scale entropy. The death of stars is also the heat death underway, and earth and life have resulted from dead stars, too. I think it is nihilistic that in our culture there are stories in the news about the heat death and T.V. shows and books about it, but I have never seen anyone point out that we apparently could not exist if not for the heat death in progress.

I also think that labeling a process, such as mixing or the finite nature of forms or heat loss as entropy has an element of truth to it but that it is a one-dimensional perception of any process thus labeled since all of these processes also make life possible. The way this effects our perception of what appears to be a completely random universe is to realize that things that are considered simply to be disorder in a creatively hostile universe, also happen to make life possible. I think this might be seen as meaning that the universe is not so creatively hostile as it is often perceived.

Actually the gist of what I am saying has been stated before although I don’t think it is ever stated in scientific terms per se. There is the saying that if you want to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs.

http://www.wwj.com/pages/5856296.php?contentId=5197367&contentType=4

This is interesting. Now my point really is, do most people think of entropy as creating or simply as disorder? And apply this to the heat death scenario. I just think people might benefit from the realization that what is perceived as, well, a less than glowing scenario has a silver lining.

UM Study: Entropy Creates Order In Complex Crystals
In a study that elevates the role of entropy in creating order, research led by the University of Michigan shows that certain pyramid shapes can spontaneously organize into complex quasicrystals.

A quasicrystal is a solid whose components exhibit long-range order, but without a single pattern or a unit cell that repeats.

A paper on the findings appears in the Dec. 10 issue of Nature. Researchers from Case Western Reserve University and Kent State University collaborated on the study.

Entropy is a measure of the number of ways the components of a system can be arranged. While often linked to disorder, entropy can also cause objects to order. The pyramid shape central to this research is the tetrahedron – a three-dimensional, four-faced, triangular polyhedron that turns up in nanotechnology and biology.

“Tetrahedrons are the simplest regular solids, while quasicrystals are among the most complex and beautiful structures in nature. It’s astonishing and totally unexpected that entropy alone can produce this level of complexity,” said Sharon Glotzer, a professor in the University of Michigan departments of chemical engineering and materials science and engineering and principal investigator on the project.

The finding may lead to the development of a variety of new materials that derive properties from their structure, said Rolfe Petschek, a physics professor at Case Western Reserve who helped with the mathematical characterization of the structure.

“A quasicrystal will have different properties than a crystal or ordinary solid,” Petschek said.

The scientists used computer simulation to find the arrangement of tetrahedrons that would yield the densest packing – that would fit the most tetrahedrons in a box.

The tetrahedron was for decades conjectured to be the only solid that packs less densely than spheres, until just last year when UM mathematics graduate student Elizabeth Chen found an arrangement that proved that speculation wrong. This latest study bests Chen’s organization and discovered what is believed to be the densest achievable packing of tetrahedrons.

But Glotzer says the more significant finding is that the tetrahedrons can unexpectedly organize into intricate quasicrystals at a point in the computer simulation when they take up roughly half the space in the theoretical box.

In this computer experiment, many thousands of tetrahedrons organized into dodecagonal, or 12-fold, quasicrystals made of parallel stacks of rings around pentagonal dipyramids. A pentagonal dipyramid contains five tetrahedrons arranged into a disk. The researchers discovered that this motif plays a key role in the overall packing.

This is the first result showing such a complicated self-arrangement of hard particles without help from attractive interactions such as chemical bonds, Glotzer said.

“Our results go to the very heart of phase transitions and to the question of how complex order arises in nature and in the materials we make,” Glotzer said. “We knew that entropy on its own could produce order, but we didn’t expect it to produce such intricate order. What else might be possible just due to entropy?”

Other approaches to solving the tetrahedron packing problem have not involved computer simulations. Researchers instead tried out different arrangements to arrive at the densest structure. That was the approach taken by Chen, who achieved a packing fraction of more than 77 percent, which means the shapes took up more than 77 percent of the space in the box. (Cubes have a 100 percent packing fraction in a cubic box, while spheres pack at only 74 percent.)

Rather than “posit what they might do,” this computer simulation allowed the tetrahedrons to figure out the best packing on their own according to the laws of statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, said Michael Engel, a postdoctoral researcher at UM and co-first author of the paper with UM chemical engineering graduate student Amir Haji-Akbari.

In the simulation, the tetrahedrons organized into a quasicrystal and settled on a packing that, when compressed further, used up 83 percent of the space. Engel then reorganized the shapes into a “quasicrystalline approximate,” which is a periodic crystal closely resembling the quasicrystal. He found an arrangement that filled more than 85 percent of the space.

The researchers are excited about the possible applications of the new structure.

“Made of the right materials, this unexpected new tetrahedron quasicrystal may possess unique optical properties that could be very interesting and useful,” said Peter Palffy-Muhoray, a professor in the Liquid Crystal Institute at Kent State University and a collaborator on the work. Possible uses include communication and stealth technologies.

The paper is called “Disordered, quasicrystalline and crystalline phases of densely packed tetrahedra.” The research is funded by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the National Science Foundation.

Hi kaneslatranz.

I’m still wondering what it is that you’re proposing. If all that you’re claiming is that in our universe, life as we know it relies on mechanisms that increase entropy, then I think everybody is in agreement. But at least for certain aspects, that idea isn’t as obscure as you make it out to be. cmyk mentioned “we are all made of star stuff”, which is one of the most famous quotes by Carl Sagan - not exactly an unkown figure.

If what you’re claiming is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is universally required to hold in order to create life, then I don’t think that’s true. See my post #42.

If you’re claiming something else, please explain what it is.

There are many mentions of the heat death scenario in popular culture as I have mentioned. It is in book and articles and T.V. shows and all over the web. Can you give me one example in which it has been mentioned that if not for the heat death we would not be here? Perhaps it’s old hat for you but I can tell you that most people do not perceive entropy or the heat death as making life possible.

Can you give me an example where it is ever mentioned that the process of the heat death is also the process by which evolution is possible? In those terms in popular culture? Just one. People are not told this aspect of the heat death. Ever as far as I can find.

Can you prove that life wouldn’t be possible without heat death?

The burden’s on you. Not us.

Most popular science media hardly mention the end of the universe. Mostly IMHO because it’s only recently (last decade or so) become fairly well established what the end actually will be. For now, at least. :slight_smile:

On the other hand, popular science media that deal with the death of stars for example often do point out that this is the process that gives us the heavy atoms necessary for the formation of planets and life. It’s been that way at least since the 1980s.

For an example of a book that mentions both, see Death from the Skies!, which also nicely points out that most people actually think the universe is a lot more forgiving of life than it actually is.

As for evolution, well, on earth, you need life and crucially, because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, you also need some kind of source of energy to keep it running - in our case, most of the energy ultimately comes from the sun. This is also fairly well understood at least in principle by most people with a basic education. If the 2nd law wouldn’t hold on the earth/sun scale, we might be better off than we are in the long run.

Evolution though, does not appear to be predicated on entropy except that life itself is necessary for evolution to occur. At least not as far as I can see. If your claim is that it is, you’re going to have to explain why you think so*. I’m not rejecting it out of hand, but I just don’t see the link.

  • and please state clearly that that is what you’re claiming. You’re pretty close to rambling from my point of view and it would be nice to have a good clear idea what it is you think people are rejecting or dismissing or agreeing with. Evolution and life and thermodynamics and crystals and the eventual faith of the universe are all interesting subjects, but if you smash them all in one discussion you’d better state clearly why.

“Evolution though, does not appear to be predicated on entropy except that life itself is necessary for evolution to occur. At least not as far as I can see. If your claim is that it is, you’re going to have to explain why you think so*. I’m not rejecting it out of hand, but I just don’t see the link.”

I have explained it actually, quite clearly, with many examples, but where would be the fun in acknowledging that? Debate is fine but my feeling is more that it should have a purpose than to be for the sake of debate, and hence the name of this area of this site though. It’s about debate. There is nothing to debate because I have spelled it out and no logical argument refutes it so you waver between saying it is already well known to saying that you don’t understand what I’m saying.

People do hear that we are star stuff and they do hear about the heat death, but they never, ever, ever in the history of the universe, have heard how these things are related. Not ever. Not once. Maybe they have of course. =) I have never seen it though.

I’m sorry. I’m just trying to understand what you mean. I dont see it. =P Muah ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa!

I suggest that next time, you make it clear what it is you’re debating or proposing and stick to the topic. You’ve already made at least a dozen vaguely defined claims in this thread and every time someone addresses any of them you either ignore them, insert a new claim only vaguely related to the previous one, or you state you’ve already explained enough and they’ve got some kind of agenda.

I’m not going to ask you again to clarify in this thread, since it’s abundantly clear you don’t want to do that. From here on, I’ll regard this as a witnessing thread instead of a debate.

Everyone that’s posted in this thread has said they are having a hard time seeing your argument and/or point. I’d take that as a hint you’re not being very clear describing whatever it is you’re trying to debate or illustrate.

How do you know? Besides, you seem a little hung up on this point. If you have some brilliant insight into the connection of these things, let’s hear it. So far, you’ve not illustrated any novel connection between anything you’re going round and round on.

What, precisely is it, you’re trying to say here? We get everything else… what’s the novel connection?

You can’t have (everlasting) cyclicity in a universe in which the second law holds invariably – when entropy always increases, each successive expansion-contraction cycle will grow larger and take longer to complete, leading eventually to a ‘heat death’ of its own, a cycle that can’t be completed anymore.

There are contemporary cyclic models, but all rely on rather speculative concepts, and (to the best of my knowledge) include a mechanism to ‘reset’ entropy in order to prevent its maximisation. Indeed, this makes for an argument similar to the one Superfluous Parentheses proposed: that those cyclic universes in which no heat death occurs are ultimately better suited to life than those in which it does, and in which life ultimately vanishes altogether.

(There’s a similar problem with your topsoil example: it’s true that the death and decay of one organism creates fertile ground for another, however, this process isn’t infinitely sustainable – each successive ‘generation’, if you will, has a harder time extracting the nutrients it needs, and only can do so with the aid of external energy sources, notably the sun. In a world in which the entropy didn’t always increase – in which it, for instance, always stayed constant --, the topsoil would in each cycle contain all the nutrients, all the usable energy it had in the first one, sustaining life indefinitely; if the entropy decreased, it would be able to feed more and more complex and energy-demanding forms of life as time went by.)

The ‘heat death in progress’ doesn’t mean anything other than ‘entropy always increases’ – or do you disagree? If not, then this relationship between entropy and life, as I’ve already mentioned, has been explored for almost as long as the concept of entropy has been around, sometime around the middle of the 19th century. Here’s an excerpt of Schrödinger’s What is Life?, in which he discusses some of the main aspects of this relationship; the wiki article on ‘entropy and life’ lists additional sources, this essay entitled ‘Life on Earth - Flow of Energy and Entropy’ being perhaps of interest. Maybe these sources can help you clarify what, if anything, you have to say that they don’t touch on.

If nobody’s explicitly connected the heat death and life, then only because nobody thought it necessary, since because heat death implies entropy increase, talking about entropy and life is essentially the same thing; and frankly, because both the heat death and the processes supporting life as we know it are consequences of entropy or, more generally, the laws of thermodynamics, discussing their connection seems a bit roundabout a way to make the same point made more easily by appealing to thermodynamics directly, in a ‘putting the cart before the horse’-kind of way.

Besides, ‘entropy always increases’ is true even in universes that don’t end in a heat death, for instance if progressive expansion leads to the universe cooling down asymptotically to absolute zero (the so-called ‘Big Freeze’-scenario, which is currently the most commonly accepted theory for an ultimate fate of the universe, I believe), or, on a local, if not global scale, in the aforementioned cyclic models; thus, while heat death always implies entropy increase, entropy can increase (at least locally) without heat death being a necessary consequence, making it the more fundamental concept.

Dawkins makes a very nice connection between entropy and life in either “The Greatest Show on Earth” or “The God Delusion”, explaining that we can have order here on earth only because the sun creates disorder on a massive scale.

But I don’t see why it should be explicitly mentioned again somewhere that entropy also leads to the heat death. Entropy plays into the existence of life. Entropy plays into everything. Entropy leads to head death. This facts are widely available and know. People can make their own connections, you know? Just because no one on TV says “… the latest news: Entropy has something to do with the start of life, and it also leads to heat death!”, it’s not hidden or ignored or something. People know it!

I would also disagree that entropy is the driving force behind the origin of life. You seem to be very much focused on the term “heat death”, and that’s a little misleading.

As far as I understand, you said:

a) Heat loss is entropy.
b) A start death is - at the end - heat loss.
c) Life can only be around at lower temperatures than on a star.

So: Star death -> heat loss -> lower temperatures -> life becomes in the end entropy -> life.

But that’s to simple. While it’s true that the laws of thermodynamics have influence on the steps from “a huge space with hydrogen atoms” to “a huge space with suns, planets and life”, thermodynamics have influence on everything. I don’t see you asking “Does the conservation of energy make life possible” or “Does Gravity make life possible” or “Does the weak nuclear force make life possible” - but all this things had a massive influence on life as we know it. Change or remove one, and it would be impossible for all we know. Entropy is one cog in the machine that is this universe, and it’s certainly not the smallest, but I wouldn’t say it is anything special or in any special way connected to life.

Hello in hiding. I am not proposing that entropy alone facilitates life. I am pointing out that in my experience with broaching this perspective, something defined as the tendency toward disorder is rarely seen as a creative force. I have had people, including a high school science teacher in England, argue against it, sometimes bristling as though the notion was an abomination in the face of reason. Then, more than once, I have had such people eventually see what I am saying, such as the teacher, and yet they would sometimes still remain hostile. =) I agree that thermodynamics have influence on everything. I thought this aspect of what is too often viewed one-dimensionally as disorder might bare observation. If you are well versed in it you can take my word on it that most people definitely are not.

Also, which is more interesting to consider, that gravity makes life possible, or that “disorder” does? Disorder apparently being more than disorder in any oversimplified sense, or am I wrong in that?

Well… it isn’t. :wink:

It has consequences on the exact way life can exist and start, but I don’t think you can call it a “creative force”. Not more than gravity is a “creative force” in the whole life-business.

That’s what I meant - it’s important, it’s somewhat counterintuitive (many creationists still try the “but the second law of thermodynamics says that…”), but it’s not a direct cause for life. I’d even say it very much limits the areas of the universe where there can be life.

The fact that thermodynamics actually don’t make life impossible is very interesting, because it’s so counterintuitive at first sight - but I would not say it’s more interesting than other laws of nature in that regard.

Gravity doesn’t “make life possible” insofar as the biochemistry of life occurs in a regime where gravity is a negligible force, and the forces of the electrochemical bonds dominate. And “heat loss is entropy” is not an accurate or useful statement; entropy (in the classical thermodynamic sense) is the amount of energy in a system that is unavailable to do useful work.

Like other respondents, I’m not clear on what the point is you are trying to make. The processes of life serve to moderate the flow of energy, in the process creating greater states of local entropy. If you are interested in the connection between life and entropy you might try reading Into the Cool: Energy Flow, Thermodynamics, and Life, which is a fairly accessible non-technical treatise on the influence of entropy and energy flow upon life and see if this doesn’t help you clarify your ideas.

Stranger

“That’s what I meant - it’s important, it’s somewhat counterintuitive (many creationists still try the “but the second law of thermodynamics says that…”), but it’s not a direct cause for life. I’d even say it very much limits the areas of the universe where there can be life.”

The reason I bring up Creationists is that unless I’m mistaken they claim that life is a miracle in an entropic universe governed by disorder, where I am saying that entropy makes life possible. I pointed that out because I have found that people sometimes mistake me for making the Creationist argument, as you are apparently still doing.

Now when you say that it’s not a direct cause for life, would stars age (Producing things like carbon and oxygen in the process.) and die (Allowing sometimes life-sustaining planets to form.) if not for entropy? Would earth and life be here if not for the aging and death of stars as I pointed out in my post? What about topsoil? If glasses did not shatter demonstrating the arrow of time, and the statistical tendency toward disorder, would organic matter decay to facilitate soil, since it too would not lose its form by way of entropy? But again I already said this in my original post.

Would hydrogen and oxygen mix to create water, even though mixing is apparently disorder? I think I mentioned that too actually.

Well lets see, then… oh, did I mention apoptosis? Maybe I didn’t mention that. If all forms were not finite, would our body be able to replace organic cells in the manner that it does?

Lets see, did I mention how evolution itself seems to demonstrate the arrow of time? If not for this, could complex organisms come into being, reproduce, and die, within species that carry on and adapt and evolve into new life forms?

Can you tell me then how life could come into being and evolve without entropy, or if the cosmos itself did not appear to be finite in that stars die en route to the eventual heat death, even as the death of stars makes life possible? Do you have an alternative entropy free universe where we would still be here in our present form?

Perhaps you would be more interested in a thread titled Does Breathing Make Life Possible?

Hey, Half Wit. “this process isn’t infinitely sustainable.” Who said it was infinitely sustainable? I believe I pointed out that all forms are finite. This includes the soil and the earth and of course our nearest star.

As for a cyclical universe, I don’t imagine that all dissipated energy condensed into a point of infinite density and mass would necessarily entail any traces of former entropy whatsoever. I see no reason why it couldn’t be tabula rasa.

It reminds me of the notion that the Big Bang is actually believed by many to have come about spontaneously from nothing. If we are to swallow this immaculate conception for the universe it would seem that in this case it is not the second law of thermodynamics that is violated but the first.