The entropy of systems

GD: 25 Jun 2009 : 20:00:58 <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Do you agree that the universe has been self-organizing from a simple system to a complex one?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><b>Our</b> universe certainly had to go thru a time of self-organization. Whether it is still in that phase, I can't say. Nor can I say whether that phase will last for ever. I can't even be sure if that phase began at some finite time in our past. My model is in its infancy; let a few thousand PhD's spend their life's work developing it with billions of government dollars at their disposal, and they might discover that my model provides more answers than questions.

I reserve judgment on the greater fractal universe; but if it has existed since the infinite past, I would guess that it's complexity should be in a kind of dynamic equilibrium, by now. Successive scale-wise universes within the fractal run in opposite time directions. While each is growing in complexity, the complexity of the whole may be constant. Such speculation goes way beyond the realm of science and into religion. If you disagree, I certainly am not saying that you are wrong.

Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

PhilJ,

I found an interesting document from the Foundation for Fundamental Research on matter (FOM):

www.fom.nl/live/attachment.db?48178

I will include a paragraphe from another document:

"It would appear that, since isolated systems cannot decrease their entropy, only open systems can exhibit self-organization. However, a closed system can gain macroscopic order while increasing its overall entropy."

There is something acting on an open system which can force change and cause energy to produce motion and work.

I will get back to you...

... Sorry, this is the paragraphe from the FOM text which caught my attention:

"...self organised structure formation in non-equilibrium thermodynamic, is treated by the theory of dissipative structures, describing how at the microscopic or local level a system may reduce its entropy by transferring it to its environment. It appears that a closed system can gain macroscopic order while increasing its overall entropy..."

I believe the universe to be a dissipative structure. This would account for the missing matter. matter which is converted into energy to produce work.

Note: the observation that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate could be misunderstood as our local group of galaxies which is accelerating (as shown previously on this thread).

PhilJ, do you think this model of the universe is possible?

GD: 26 Jun 2009 : 18:15:05 <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">PhilJ, do you think this model of the universe is possible?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I can't call it <b>im</b>possible. I might be less vague if I had a better understanding of exactly what you mean by "the universe".

In my own model, I describe a greater fractal universe in which our universe occupies a certain range of scale---about 60 orders of magnitude. I describe a mechanism by which exergy may be exchanged between our universe and other universes outside our scale range. This already is going considerably beyond the realm of science and into religion. I am very reluctant to speculate on exergy flow beyond our universe, the first sub-universe and the first super-universe. My guess is that these are but three in an infinite succession of scale-wise universes, with exergy flowing up and down the scale.

I believe the greater fractal universe is infinite in size, time, scale and altenative realities. If it is infinte in even one dimention, then I can't call it a closed system.


Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

<b>[PhilJ]"This already is going considerably beyond the realm of science and into religion."</b>

You can move the "spooky" parts of your theory in the direction of reality (and thereby make it more palatable to scientists) if you adjust you definition of the word universe.

In DRP we define it as "everything that has, does, will or can exist." In particular this includes things that, in other theories, are often called alternate or parallel universes. DRP currently sees no need for such undefined (or at best poorly defined) structures but if we ever do we would most likely call them "sub universes" to emphasize that they are part of rather than separate from the universe itself.

One way to adjust your definitions:<ul>
<li>Universe = everything
</li><li>Visible Universe = that portion of the Universe that is the 60 or so orders of magnitude size range we are presently able to detect. (Note that this is a moving target that depends on technology and engineering at least as much as on science.)
</li><li>Sub Universe = all portions of the Universe with a size range smaller than the current lower edge of the size range of the Visible Universe
</li><li>Super Universe = all portions of the Universe with a size range larger than the current upper edge of the size range of the Visible Universe
</li><li>First Super Universe = the first portion of the Universe larger than the Visible Universe
</li><li>First Sub Universe = the first portion of the Universe smaller than the Visible Universe
</li></ul>

When you do this it becomes obvious that the parts of the universe that are presently too large or too small for us to detect are not "special" or "magical" or "supernatural" in any way. And it keeps us from falling into the trap science has always fallen into - believing that the smallest thing we can see now is "the smallest possible thing". Or "largest possible thing", at the other size edge.

These other parts of the Universe may not even be "different" in any way. Just larger or smaller versions of what we can detect now. But that remains to be seen, because until we can go there we cannot know for sure.

At the current bottom edge of the size range of the Visible Universe, our instruments can detect "something" in a vacuum. It has been called many names - vacuum energy, vacuum fluctuations, zero point energy. Whatever it is (they are?), these things we are almost able to detect are going to become the next "smallest posssible thing" unless we learn to view the Universe as infinite in the size dimension as well as the distance and time dimensions. "Smallest (or largest) <u>observed</u> thing" is a more scientific way to think about these issues.

DRP is beginning to explore (in the theoretical sense) the physical nature of particles with sizes below our current ability to detect. There are some interesting things down there. If our theories are correct the universe actually does begin to behave differently, in some ways, if you go far enough "down size".

It may do something similar if you go far enough "up size" as well. The next generation or two of super telescopes should produce some very interesting data. And, if we are ever able to move far enough "up size" or "down size" we may eventually encounter a range of sizes that repeat, more or less, what we see in our local size range. But again, until we can go there we cannot know this.

LB

I have taken a few definitions from the web concerning the thermodynamic laws: (the 4th and 5th laws are attempts to include evolution or self-organization within existing laws)
I have added some comments in <i>italic</i>

0th Law: "If two thermodynamic systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other."
<i>According to the theory of relativity, accelerating bodies lose energy (all thermodynamic systems are affected by gravity). The attractor for this motion is: tending to "zero exergy" ... trying to reach equilibrium. This law does not seem correct since thermal equilibrium can never be reached. If a body accelerates, then it is not in equilibrium.</i>

1st Law: "The increase in the internal energy of a thermodynamic system is equal to the amount of heat energy added to the system minus the work done by the system on the surroundings."
<i>The increase in internal energy of a thermodynamic system could be the result of the dissipative nature of matter: heat energy radiates from matter as it accelerates.</i>

2nd Law: "The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."


3rd Law: "As a system approaches absolute zero of temperature, all processes cease and the entropy of the system approaches a minimum value."

4th Law: "...The Onsager reciprocal relations, which give a quantitative relation between the parameters of a system in which heat and matter are simultaneously flowing."
"Other tentative fourth law statements are attempts to apply thermodynamics to evolution."

5th Law: "An open system containing a large number of similar elements placed in contact with a non-equilibriated environment has the potential of self organizing, using energy and matter taken from its environment."


Sorry... I will come back to this later...

GD: "3rd Law: "As a system approaches absolute zero of temperature, all processes cease and the entropy of the system approaches a minimum value.""

Hmmm ... I have been thinking about the effect of temperature on the particles making up the LCM, and also the gravitons' motion that creates gravity. Are they affected by temperature as described by this 3rd Law?