Luminal Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Do you believe it possible for human technology one day in the distant future to be capable of preventing the heat death of the universe? I personally see no reason why we could or would not. Likely, humans will eventually understand how/when/why matter and energy initially originated from without breaking the first law of thermodynamics (perhaps by starting their own Big Bangs in sub-universes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 If the cyclical models of the universe are correct, then the second law of thermodynamics doesn't always hold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred56 Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 Life already 'prevents' entropy from dispersing it, in some sense. Life is like something that exploits entropy, or surfs the wave, type of thing. It's an ongoing balance between expending energy and maintaining an individual reservoir. Life converts itself into (chemical) energy to do this (to convert stuff into itself). Since this involves the one-way "flow" of energy (entropy), there is no going backwards, or stopping (this is death, in fact). We cannot stop the entropic dispersal, so logically, life will eventually be faced with the prospect of being unable to find any "good surf", anywhere, and even trying to look for it, or 'think' about where to look, will be catastrophically "overloading" (the heat will destroy us)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 Entropy still holds. A single born organism (lifeform) is not a closed system. Per "humans preventing the heat death of the universe," seems rather arrogant to presume that we, part of the universe itself, are somehow "beyond" it enough to prevent one of it's (proposed) death mechanisms. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 If the cyclic models are correct, it won't be human action that made them so. If heat death is the end result, we won't be able to prevent it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 I am not sure we're going to *be around* (humans) when that happens.. before the actual "heat death", the universe is probably going to seriously not support any humanoid life. Anywhere. Long before the 'death', actually, considering the fact these processes take billions of years. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred56 Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Which means something like: it would take a really long time to think about anything by then (or well before then probably), or store up the required energy to do it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Which means something like: it would take a really long time to think about anything by then (or well before then probably), or store up the required energy to do it... How are we supposed to store energy in a way which doesn't obey the second law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred56 Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Duh, maybe we won't be able 2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Duh, maybe we won't be able 2? Then why did you suggest that we could? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred56 Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 Why are you suggesting that I suggested this? I don't think I suggested any such suggestion... by then (or well before then probably) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 Why are you suggesting that I suggested this? I don't think I suggested any such suggestion... I think it was when you said "store up the required energy to do it" but "it" would require that you violate the 2nd law, so the only way to store that energy to do "it" would have to be in a way that violated the 2nd law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luminal Posted November 26, 2007 Author Share Posted November 26, 2007 I think several assumptions are being made here: 1) That humans will not understand how the Big Bang started in highly precise detail and not have the technology to replicate it in 'sub-Universes' or on the fringes of the existing Universe. In 100,000 years of technological progress equal to the 20th century, I would marvel if humans were not capable of this. Not to mention, 100,000,000,000 years, or longer. 2) That technological progress will not lead humans to the capability of manipulating the laws or constants of physics themselves. I believe the primary question is whether humans will continue to progress. If we hinder ourselves with sufficient violence at the hands of new technology, then the answer will be 'no'. If we do continue to progress, it is quite probable that we can extend the lifespan of this Universe as long as we wish, and the lives of anyone inhabiting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 2) That technological progress will not lead humans to the capability of manipulating the laws or constants of physics themselves. If we can manipulate them, then they are not laws or constants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 If we're going to consider stuff at the level of altering the laws/constants of physics, maybe we could also consider other things like move to a different universe or create a universe of our own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred56 Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 I think it was when you said "store up the required energy to do it" but "it" would require that you violate the 2nd law, so the only way to store that energy to do "it" would have to be in a way that violated the 2nd law. OK, just so I'm clear on this: when is this going to happen? When will we not be able to store energy unless violating the 2nd Law? Maybe "sometime before" entropy winds down the background level so there's no available energy to perform this task (or any other)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 How can you stop a natural process of the universe while you *are part* of the natural process of the universe, though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred56 Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Perhaps someone will be thinking about this question (or trying to) when they, and the universe, run out of energy (or the "ability" to reverse the flow of entropy, that they don't have to start with). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Perhaps someone will be thinking about this question (or trying to) when they, and the universe, run out of energy (or the "ability" to reverse the flow of entropy, that they don't have to start with). If the universe has "run out of energy," then "they" and their thoughts will not be a relevant factor. A universe without energy is a universe without humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred56 Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 I wonder how long everyone will keep thinking about this one (or about what they all think everyone else is saying). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 OK, just so I'm clear on this: when is this going to happen? When will we not be able to store energy unless violating the 2nd Law? Maybe "sometime before" entropy winds down the background level so there's no available energy to perform this task (or any other)? We always can't store energy that violates the second law. (sheesh, I feel like Clevinger in Catch-22) Put another way, any process where we would locally decrease entropy would increase it, by a larger amount, somewhere else in the universe. You can't reverse the overall entropy increase. If this isn't what you are saying, perhaps you could unwind some of the double-negatives in your statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred56 Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 I think what you (and a couple others) are saying is you believe I am saying that you can "reverse the overall entropy increase." But I think (actually I'm fairly sure) that I have been saying (and still am) that you would need to (reverse the flow). This is something that you don't have, so thinking about having it is, well, just thinking. But let's believe things. Since this involves the one-way "flow" of energy (entropy), there is no going backwards, or stopping (this is death, in fact). We cannot stop the entropic dispersal, so logically, life will eventually be faced with the prospect of being unable to find any "good surf", anywhere[/b'], P.S. There does seem to be something of a pattern here, is it a language thing? (I have a mixed Euro ancestry, German -my first name is fairly Saxon, French, probably Norman, etc, I tend to speak a bit germanically, and my writing reflects my speech, deux negatifs, or double entendre?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OptimisticNihilist Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 It seems like everyone is ignoring a basic factor here. We're living, intelligent creatures. I'm no expert on nuclear fusion, dark matter, dark energy, entropy, or thermodynamics, but no one really is. We get curious, find something out, and do something that was thought impossible just a year ago. It's just what we do! I know that, even if it takes a billion years, and even if we can only sustain one planet, we can keep things going. We just need the knowledge. As for this talk of breaking the laws of physics, think of this as an example. Gravity is supposed to draw us to earth, but a rocket weighing 56,000 pounds can break free. Though it seems to break the laws of physics, it is simply manipulating them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamBridge Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Heat death is only assuming the universe is a closed system. But on a yearly basis we keep discovering objects more and more distant than what we had previously discovered, so it's quite possible that the universe is infinite in size and we don't have to worry. Besides, this will take trillions of years, with that much time who knows what technology will be invented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Monkeybat Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 When the piece of mass decays into photons the only frame of reference left will be that the photon. From the photons perspective at the speed of light no time passes and the universe is infinitely small, a singularity ready for the next big bang. A big crunch is not necessary for a cyclical universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now