Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   
10 simple things to be more green

Home // Liberal Corner


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
Oolon Colluphid
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 14 Dec 2006
Posts: 133
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:
So we take energy out of other universes where it's possible more civilized and humane beings live to fuel ourselves? I dunno about that.

Even if we could get energy from other universes, and we got more than it cost us to extract, is it ethical to take energy from a world we know nothing about?

Not only this, but if we're doing it to other worlds, what’s to say that others aren't doing it to our world? Thereby making any effort by us merely a stopgap.


What? Ethical? No, that’s not at all what I'm saying. I'm not supposing that we do this to other universes, I'm saying this could be happening already between universes.

If it is true, like I've heard, that subatomic particles (such as electrons) seem to disappear and reappear, and taking in the theory that they are being passed through parallel universes, then isn't it possible that we are not completely a "closed system"? That would make entropy in our universe as a whole, impossible.

There's nothing to say that these other universes have life such as ours, or even life at all in the first place.

What I'm suggesting is that these particles may be already sharing energy from these universes. If that is true, then it could be that we are not in a closed system at all. The first law of thermodynamics would be exactly as it states; energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Energy therefore, is. Whether it is used here or there would not make a difference.

These particles could be 'recycling’ energy in a sense - Pulling it between parallel universes when it is needed. This would mean that usable energy is indeed, "constant".
Back to top
Oolon Colluphid
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 14 Dec 2006
Posts: 133
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:
At maximum entropy however, how could you have something as ordered as a planet or a tree?

Wouldn't Heat Death mean the dispersion of all ordered things into choas?


No, rocks don't use any energy, but they are still there. Even if there was no further usable energy, the rock would still be a rock. You could not have a tree though because there would be no energy for it to consume.
Back to top
Oolon Colluphid
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 14 Dec 2006
Posts: 133
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
CryxicKiller wrote:
The Universe will continue to expand forever, but that has more to do with the effects of gravitation rather than entropy. What is actually "expanding" is the very fabric of spacetime. Matter in our Universe will eventually coalesce around little clusters. Galaxies will still continue to exist, but in far greater isolation than they are now....


Energy from other Universes? Don't bet on it, although it would be cool.


Why not? It is a theory that the weakness of Gravity is because it is seeping into our universe from an outside stronger source. Why would it not be possible that particles pull energy into our universe and into other universes alike? Similar to "seeping" gravity.
Back to top
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332

PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I just said don't bet on it. Yes I realize that the latest TOEs have hypothesized that, but there is still much that we don't know on that front. I think you're sounding way too confident, frankly. Even if energy somehow does leak to this Universe, I would sincerely doubt it's that much that it would affect the behavior of the Universe. We can't generate more energy than we get, so if a little energy seeps into this Universe, it won't mean much. Ultimately, spacetime will pull galactic structures apart, the Universe will suffer from a 'Big Freeze,' and all that will be left in the end are fundamental particles, just like in Heat Death (see below).

Secondly, Lester is right, if, again, we assume that protons decay, which is one of the biggest unknowns in physics today. We also have to assume that the Universe will continue to exist forever. But if protons decay and the Universe will go on for infinity, then maximum entropy will result in the Universe being sprinkled with fundamental particles all over the place. Once all the reactions in the Universe have taken place, everything, including rocks, will have used up all the energy they had.

It's a little bit edgy, but see Wikipedia's explanation for Heath Death: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death. Of particular interest in this context is the following sentence towards the end of the process: "Few if any black holes remain; virtually all matter is now converted into photons." That appears to be something like the ultimate fate of the Universe, provided the above assumptions hold.
Back to top
Oolon Colluphid
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 14 Dec 2006
Posts: 133
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="CryxicKiller"]
... We can't generate more energy than we get, so if a little energy seeps into this Universe, it won't mean much. Ultimately, spacetime will pull galactic structures apart, the Universe will suffer from a 'Big Freeze,' and all that will be left in the end are fundamental particles, just like in Heat Death (see below).

CryxicKiller wrote:

Secondly, Lester is right, if, again, we assume that protons decay, which is one of the biggest unknowns in physics today. We also have to assume that the Universe will continue to exist forever. But if protons decay and the Universe will go on for infinity, then maximum entropy will result in the Universe being sprinkled with fundamental particles all over the place. Once all the reactions in the Universe have taken place, everything, including rocks, will have used up all the energy they had.



Would what you're describing here be the same as "the big rip" theory?
Back to top
Docsmitter
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 311
Location: CA LE FOR NYE YAY

PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oolon Colluphid wrote:
Lester wrote:
At maximum entropy however, how could you have something as ordered as a planet or a tree?

Wouldn't Heat Death mean the dispersion of all ordered things into choas?


No, rocks don't use any energy, but they are still there. Even if there was no further usable energy, the rock would still be a rock. You could not have a tree though because there would be no energy for it to consume.


Weak Atomic Bonds are a form of energy. If there was a complete lack of energy,(no existence) only gravity would be present and hydrogen bonds... maybe... The rock wouldn't have the energy to have atomic bonds, but entropy, isnt taking the energy already existing in bonds. So as long as that rock was, it will be. But forming new rock is a whole different story.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:
At maximum entropy however, how could you have something as ordered as a planet or a tree?Wouldn't Heat Death mean the dispersion of all ordered things into choas?


Maximum entropy is a black hole, not heat death.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Docsmitter wrote:
Oolon Colluphid wrote:

No, rocks don't use any energy, but they are still there. Even if there was no further usable energy, the rock would still be a rock. You could not have a tree though because there would be no energy for it to consume.


Weak Atomic Bonds are a form of energy. If there was a complete lack of energy,(no existence)


He said useable energy.

That's different from just plain "energy".
Back to top
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332

PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Maximum entropy could be defined, quite literally in this context, as the moment when the spacetime of this Universe no longer witnesses any more physical and chemical reactions. At the point of maximum entropy, all the reactions that could have occurred would have occurred. At that point, heat and radiation would be the only thing left, hence why we speak about "heat death."
Back to top
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332

PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Look, I sense some confusion, so let me lay down the gauntlet: Lester is absolutely right, in the context of our latest scientific theories, if we make the assumptions that I mentioned before. There's no reason to go on arguing this because it's pointless.
Back to top
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332

PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Docsmitter wrote:
Weak Atomic Bonds are a form of energy. If there was a complete lack of energy,(no existence) only gravity would be present and hydrogen bonds... maybe... The rock wouldn't have the energy to have atomic bonds, but entropy, isnt taking the energy already existing in bonds. So as long as that rock was, it will be. But forming new rock is a whole different story.


This whole post is generally confusing. If nothing existed, there wouldn't be any gravitational effects either because those effects are caused by "existence," or more appropriately, matter. And no, the rock that was will not continue to be. It feels like some people here are not even reading the part about PROTONS DECAYING! Perhaps my frustration is unwarranted if you do not know the fact that protons, if they decay, do not decay into anything else, unlike many other particles. So once protons decay, the downfall of organized matter as you know it, including that rock, begins. Protons decay + all other reactions = heat death (basically).
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
We're upsetting Cryxic Razz

Just remember, proton decay = entire universe nothing but atoms spread out as far as possible, which means EVERYTHING that you can see at the moment will be gone.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:

Just remember, proton decay = entire universe nothing but atoms spread out as far as possible


I'd imagine that it would mean no more protons. Which would in turn mean no more atoms.
Back to top


Post new topic   Reply to topic   Quick Reply    LVC Home // Liberal Corner All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5

 

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo!

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites