Does the "heat death" make life possible?

Would stars and planets form without gravity? Would molecules bond without electromagnetism? Would nuclei be stable without the strong force? Would there be any matter in the universe without the weak interaction?

You can play this game with pretty much any natural law you can think of, and in a sense, this does mean that they’re all necessary to life as we know it – however, they are so only in the trivial sense that for things to be as they are, they must be as they are.

And besides, our inability to come up with a way for life to exist in a universe not subject to the 2nd law doesn’t imply that it’s impossible; indeed, such universes might be vastly more hospitable than our own. As both Superfluous Parentheses’ and my examples show, it’s certainly not necessary for a universe to suffer an eventual heat death in order to sustain life, nor even for entropy to always increase; and neither does a universe which will suffer a heat death automatically sustain life.

You seem to feel that you’re fighting the good fight, trying to convince us all of this amazing idea you’ve discovered, that we’re all desperately trying to find reasons to reject. You’re not. No one is saying you’re wrong. No one at all. The reaction you’re getting here is not “You’re mad! Stop trying to challenge my closeminded preconceptions!” It’s “SO WHAT?”

Your point, as far as anyone can figure out, is something that’s already well known and accepted. We’re merely trying to understand why you seem to feel it’s so groundbreaking and important. It’s like someone bursting into a room shouting “Guys! Water is WET!!” and then wondering why no one’s particularly interested.

Well, would that thread have a coherent topic for debate? Or would it be like this one, just with a different title?

“this process isn’t infinitely sustainable.” In this you also demonstrate the usual one-dimensional perception of entropy; effectively and accurately enough equating it with death, where my entire point here is that, yes, while it is death we also could not be here without it, which many people, evidently including yourself, do not perceive about entropy, hence my bringing it up as one often overlooked aspect of evolution and life.

Entropy is death but what many people fail to see in our materialistic culture is that death is also change and change is nothing if not the cornerstone of evolution.

Entropy giveth and entropy taketh away. =)

No, that was just meant as an example how a lot of people are fooled by a misunderstanding of the 2nd law - I didn’t mean to imply you are a creationist, sorry it sounded like that.

Stars age because they fuse hydrogen and other elements, and some day they run out of fuel. They might blow up, and that might lead to heavier elements that make life as we know it possible. This process follows several laws of nature, some of them (but not all of them) are the laws of thermodynamics. If you take away or change any of them, the whole process changes so much that life as we know it would not exist. In that case, okay, it you might call it a “direct cause”, if you want to, but that’s true for pretty much everything. Thermodynamics makes life possible, the same as gravity makes life possible, the same as the strong or weak nuclear force makes life possible, the same as the conservation of energy makes life possible, the same as the speed of light makes life possible, the same as relativity makes… … you get the point.

So, yes, the thread title could as well have been “does breathing make human life possible?”, and the answer would have been “yes”. As well as a beating hearth, eating food, and a thousand other things. I don’t understand the importance you seem to put on entropy and the heat death.
The big bang is something different - it’s a singularity, which means that we cannot extrapolate anything beyond it. The concept of “before the big bang” makes no sense as we can’t even say if there was either time or causality “before it”.

Smeghead, yes it is ackowledged that the death of stars facilitates life. Can you find one discussion other than this one of the heat death where it is pointed out that without it we would not be here at all? I don’t think it is as common a realization as you say. But then I can tell you that plenty of people aren’t even aware that we would not be here if not for the death of stars. I mean lots of them. I think that has a lot to do with the fact that many of the great unwashed tend to shun science as generally nihilistic.

Snowboarder, to acknowledge the more obvious factors that go into making life possible, while it has its place, is in fact more of a SO WHAT?! in my opinion than this aspect of entropy and life. Or do you think otherwise? (I know you weren’t the one who said that. =) The fact that I am pointing out that disorder makes life possible perhaps strikes you as “incoherent” precisely because it appears counter intuitive, so maybe in that sense it rubs you the wrong way despite the fact that it is a more interesting observation than the obvious.

To be honest I think this just rubs people the wrong way because it is not how they are taught to view things. What I have experienced consistently with a number of people is that they will claim I am mistaken and then, often in an apparent rage, claim that it’s obvious and thus irrelevant. Well which is it? It can’t be both incorrect and pointlessly obvious.

By and large, people perceive entropy simply as disorder and I think most people want to keep it that way despite the fact that there is more to it.

I don’t equate entropy with death – in the end, entropy leads to ‘death’, if you will, as maximum entropy means that the universe has no more usable energy to extract, and hence, that no chemical or physical processes can take place any more. However, entropy itself is merely a thermodynamic state function of a physical system, nothing more.

Your point of the emergence of order from disorder is somewhat ill conceived, I believe. Order doesn’t so much emerge as, well, get transported in a way in the form of negative entropy; that is, in the end, what makes life possible. The universe, for some reason (why is one of the great unsolved problems in physics), started out in a very ordered way; ever since, thanks to entropy, the disorder has been increasing. What life now does is import some of that primordial order, take its orderliness to keep up its own order, and release disorder – entropy – into the environment; the concrete example here is the orderly sunlight being absorbed by the biosphere, and re-radiated in a more high-entropy form. Entropy is the tendency of closed systems to evolve towards disorder; life continually has to do work in order to stave of its decaying influence, and it can only do so thanks to the order present since the beginning of the universe. Again, I can only recommend you take a look at Schrödinger’s writings, I think he brings the point across most clearly.

Don’t apologize, kaneslatranz is being willfully obtuse. It’s taken nearly two pages just to finally get to his point that life (order) can arise from disorder.

Yeh. Everyone already knows that.

Then he’s crying that everyone here is acusing him of being a creationist :confused: or dismissing his thoughts as irrelevant. He’s constantly repeating what a martyr he is for regurgitating this point, ad nauseum, that everyone he knows with a substantial degree of scientific knowledge gets infuriated with him. I’m beginning to wonder why. :rolleyes:

It’s clear to me now he’s here to witness about something that’s weighing on his mind. If you want to bemoan creationists, most everyone here is with you. If it’s something else, then get it out already.

No, it doesn’t strike me as incoherent and no, it doesn’t run me the wrong way. In fact, it doesn’t rub ANYONE the wrong way. It’s so blindingly obvious and has been known for so long that they write comedy scenes about it for movies.

Do you have some point to debate, or are you just here to Stuart*?

*Stuarting is exhibited at 3:40 in that video.

Well, you’re using terms a bit unconventionally, and glossing over some finer details that are confusing some very smart and educated people here, who are just trying to tease out what exactly you mean, when you’re using words like entropy, heat death, and such. To understand you, they have to make sure you know if the words you’re using mean the same thing to them.

Then, after finally unraveling your convoluted method of describing your nebulous thoughts, they realize you’re saying pretty much something the world of science has known for umpteen years.

So, it’s both.

Sorry. None of your thoughts or ideas are original. You’ll have to snag your nobel prize with another line of reasoning. God forbid.

Oh, my. Nobel Prize? Crying? Martyring. Ha Ha Ha Ha! Yes you’re all correct and I’m sorry I have been so emotional and irrational in making my so obvious point. Soooo… has anyone ever seen mention of the fact that the heat death makes life possible? =) Sorry for intruding on your scientific brilliance.

Actually, yes, I posted this before, if this thing about entropy is so painfully obvious, why is this article of any interest whatsoever, considering that everyone is so painfully aware that entropy creates?

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.

Good.

The “heat death” is only a possible outcome for the end of the universe. Current theories and observations suggest that the universe will in fact not end with the heat death, so any suggestion that life depends on it would appear to be immediately false.

Of course, this has been pointed out to you a few times already, so I suppose you’ll ignore it again.

Ok, after some more searching, I take this back.

What is important though, is that you keep using the terms “heat death” and “entropy” interchangeably when you appear to mean the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is not the same thing.

Hmmmm. Now this is pretty cool, except that it dares to address the misconceptions of entropy as purely destruction and dares to imply that the creative nature of entropy might be worth mentioning…

http://hem.bredband.net/arenamontanus/Mage/euthanatos.html

The Ocean of Dust
HTML by Will Franqui (wfranqui@nmsu.edu) Excerpts from The Ocean of Dust, a widely read book among Euthanatos. The book contains hundreds of short texts and aphorisms without any apparent order about almost everything. Versions exist in several languages, often with significant differences. Its author and original language is unknown.

Entropy:

Entropy is fundamental. It is more fundamental than time and space. It is more fundamental than matter and energy. It is more fundamental than life and death. Entropy is that which drives all things, the force which turns the great wheel of existence.
[/quote]

All righty then.

Bowing out now.

Aaaaaand, there it is. Crackpottery. Took long enough to surface, but it always does.

I’m done.

Dude. That is from Mage:The Ascension. A Role Playing game. It… you know… Fiction. I know it, I’ve played it. It was fun. But really, it has nothing to do with reality.

kaneslatranz, don’t copy and paste entire pages like this. It’s not allowed. And yes, you appear to be copying and pasting text from a role playing game to support your argument.