Nope. Any influx of energy means the system isn’t closed.
The sun is a huge entropy generator. Life on Earth can use some of the sun’s energy to locally create order, but the net result is an increase in entropy.
Phobos wrote:
“Any influx of energy means the system isn’t closed. The sun is a huge entropy generator. Life on Earth can use some of the sun’s energy to locally create order, but the net result is an increase in entropy.”
This is exactly true. Entropy is affecting the entire universe, because the universe is the only truly closed system. One of the more likely possibilities for the end of the universe is heat death, where every point in the universe is at the same temperature and all matter and energy is distributed evenly throughout. Of course, why planets formed at all, instead of the universe going straight from the Big Bang to uniform distribution of energy, is one of the great mysteries of physics. I suppose creationists would argue that God intervened to create planets and such, but I think there is a natural answer with no need to invoke any supernatural entity. Finding that answer will be a huge breakthrough in modern physics.
Respectfully yours,
Mixlplix 
Let us not forget those recently-found forms of life which have apparently evolved without ever having seen the Sun at all. Remember those gigantic red-and-white tube worms found living under the sea near geothermal vents? Not found in any other type of environment, these worms get their sustenance from the chemical-laden super-heated water that shoots out of the Earth’s crust. They live in total darkness and would endure even if the Earth were flung out of orbit away from the Sun. (Until the ocean froze solid anyway, and even that might not happen for a long time if the vents stayed active.)
And a recent article in Discover detailed the finding of bacteria living DEEP underground (more than a mile) in South Africa, discovered only because of the deep, deep gold mines there. If it can be shown these bacteria did not originate on the surface, then we would know about one more form of life that does not depend on the Sun. And it raises the tantalizing possibility of subterranean life on Mars and other planets and/or their moons.
jab1 wrote:
Although Mars has volcanoes, they are rather old, and have been extinct for some time. This and other, more subtle evidence suggests that Mars is not very geologically (Areologically?) active, and doesn’t produce nearly as much geothermal (Areothermal?) energy as the Earth does. If deep subterranean life forms did exist on Mars in the past, they’ve probably lost their energy source by now.
Then perhaps we can find Martian fossils. How do you feel about finding life on Europa?
If I remember my college Astronomy correctly, one of the clues that led to the idea of the Big Bang is the Universal Background Radiation, which can be seen everywhere in the sky. IIRC, immediately after the Bang, all matter was at the same temperature, and evenly distributed. When it began cooling, the atoms formed, causing a chain reaction which created “order out of chaos,” as it were.
If I am mistaken, I’m fairly confident that someone will point it out to me. Bear in mind (my standard disclaimer) that I’m not a racist.
Oops. Wrong disclaimer.
Bear in mind that the course I took was a long time ago, and my memory ain’t what it used to be.
Better than finding life on Uranus (ba-dum-bum!)
sorry. it was there.
True. In their case, the entropy of the energy emitting from the hydrothermal vent exceeds the order that is drawn from it for life there.
Unless they evolved to use a different source of energy.
It may be a better chance than for Mars because of the likely large amounts of liquid water and the heat in the moon resulting from the intense magnetic field of Jupiter.
Dive Europa!
Since you asked…
Right after the BB, the universe was filled with something-energy-like (perhaps something like a quark-gluon plasma…still being researched). When the universe expanded (and therefore cooled) enough, this stuff was able to condensate into atoms of matter like hydrogen & helium.
The thing is, the early universe did not seem to have this stuff evenly distributed. The universe was lumpy for some reason. The lumpiness allowed matter to collect into stars and galaxies. Why this was so is one of the current big research questions in cosmology.
Blessedwolf said:
Close. Actually, the background radiation was a prediction of the Big Bang theory, before we had the ability to measure it. When we were finally able to do so, the fact that it was there added one more piece of evidence to the theory.
This is one way that a “historical” science can be predictive (which creationists often claim it cannot). Even though the Big Bang obviously happened quite some time ago, scientists were able to predict what we would find, and then they went and found it. If they had not found it, they would have had to go back to the drawing board.
malus meus. I had a brain fart and forgot that the BB was deduced from the discovery that the Universe is expanding. Thanks for joggling my mammaries. er…or something.
Honey, you can joggle my mammaries any time.
I think it is important to note that the quark-gluon plasma or whatever it was during the first few picoseconds of the universe is actually MORE ordered than atoms are. This is because they contain more energy, and we have been decaying from it ever since. Rather counterintuitive, I think.
Respectfully yours,
Mixlplix
Mixlplix98:
No, where do you think that energy went? Energy is conserved. There’s exactly as much energy in the universe today as there was yesterday, last year, or a billion years ago.
Anyway, energy doesn’t mean order. A hot cup of coffee has more energy than a quartz crystal, but the crystal is definitely more ordered.
You are probably right. However, from my understanding, more energy does mean more order, according to TD. You are right that there is as much energy now as there was, what, 15 billion years ago? But that energy was compressed into a much smaller space than now. As the universe expanded, matter and energy cooled into the planets, stars and the background glow we see today. I will doublecheck my physics textbooks about TD. I suppose I should have said more energetic than now.
Respectfully yours,
Mixlplix
Brief addendum.
After some thought, I found where my logic was coming from. TD2 says that all closed systems will tend toward more disorder. Given that the universe is the only true closed system, it stands to reason that anything at the beginning of the system will have the most order, and anything coming after the system will have less order. A crystal will have more order than hydrogen gas, but the crystal requires energy to attain that order. Perhaps this logic is flawed. I would appreciate any input if it is.
Respectfully yours,
Mixlplix
Formally, that’s wrong; and, since both minor and major mis-statements of the second law have been used for nefarious purposes (of which I’m not accusing you), it’s probably worth correction.
Nit: The Second Law states that the entropy of a closed system either increases or remains the same. In practice the latter never happens, so we can dismiss the possibility.
However, the Second law speaks of entropy. The equivalence of entropy to disorder is mathematically established only for perfect gases (a perfect gas is an abstraction that doesn’t exist, although it’s a pretty darned good approximation for many cases). Although the equivalence of entropy to disorder is plausible for many other cases, it’s not mathematically established and is therefore not on the same footing as the Second Law itself.
The idea that the universe is a closed system is an assumption. Probably a justifiable and good assumption, but an assumption. It is conceivable that we will someday gather evidence that it’s incorrect.
As to the original question, I think that the entropy of the Universe was much smaller after the Big Bang than it is now. Note that the apparent low-entropy state of the stars and galaxies and us and what-not is not prohibited by the Second law, entropy can be rearranged within a closed system, and it appears that there’s lots of stuff we’re not seeing that contains a lot of entropy.
Don’t forget this summer’s findings of possible geologically-recent liquid water flow:
http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/aaas-eor062200.html
Either it’s not liquid water (possible) or SOMETHING melted the subsurface ice.
Thank you for the clarification. The mathematical distinction is small, but relavent nonetheless.
It seems to me that since the universe is expanding, it must be expanding into something. This would imply that the universe has a boundary, therefore finite. My knowledge of cosmology is quite limited, however.
Respectfully yours,
Mixlplix
It is possible, and maybe likely, that the universe is finite but unbounded. The famous blowing-up-the-balloon analogy is useful here. Consider our universe as analogous to a two-dimensional universe contained on the surface of a balloon with no neck (as you would find on a real balloon). This balloon is expanding. There are two-dimensional beings on the surface, that cannot sense the third dimension. The balloon is finite but unbounded; the two dimensional beings can travel an infinite distance in any direcction along the balloon’s surface without encountering a boundary.
Unfortunately, considering “expanding into something”, the balloon analogy breaks down. The universe is not expanding into space; space itself is expanding, and not necessarily into something. I don’t know of a good analogy for this.
“I don’t know of a good analogy for this.”
I think the balloon analogy is a fine illustration for that purpose, if we stick to the point-of-view of the 2-D balloon-surface residents. They sell all space expanding, but it’s not like a piece of paper expanding onto an empty tabletop; from a 2-D point of view, their universe is “expanding into” some empty space.