Big Bang, Big Crunch: Decrease in Entropy?

[Jim Rutt]

The whole reason the 2nd law appears to us as it does is an artifact of the
fact that universe started in a very low state of entropy and is still at a
relatively low state of entropy.  It'd probably look quite differently both
on the way towards  a "big crunch" or in a very late non-collapsing
universe heading for heat death.  T

=jim rutt


At 12:43 PM 5/26/2004 -0600, you wrote:

>In the 1990's two groups of astronomers, one led by Saul Perlmutter at
>the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and the other led by Brian
>Schmidt at the Australian National University, set out to determine by
>measuring the recession speeds of type Ia supernovae.  After
>painstakingly determining the distance and recessional velocities of
>each, both groups came to a totally unexpected conclusion: ever since
>the universe was about 7 billion years old, its expansion rate has not
>been decelerating.  Instead, the expansion rate has been speeding up.
>This observational data would coincide with Albert Einstein's 1917
>introduction of the cosmological constant.  As ordinary matter spread
>out and its gravitational pull diminished, the repulsive push of the
>cosmological constant ( whose strength does not change as matter spreads
>out) would have gradually gained the upper hand, and the era of
>decelerated spatial expansion would have given way to a new era of
>accelerated expansion.
>
>About 100 billion years from now, all but the closest of galaxies will
>be dragged away by the swelling space at faster-then-light speed and so
>would be impossible for us to see, regardless of the power of telescopes
>used.
>
>See also works by Jim Peebles at Princeton, and also Lawrence Krauss of
>Case Western and Michael Turner of the University of Chicago, and Gary
>Steigman of Ohio State, all had suggested that the universe might have a
>small nonzero cosmological constant.
>
>Dark energy is the most widely accepted explanation for the observed
>acceleration expansion, but other theories have been put forward.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
>Behalf Of Carl
>Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 12:18 PM
>To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Big Bang, Big Crunch: Decrease in Entropy?
>
>
>No.  Well, maybe.  Depends.
>See http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/open.questions.html
>question #5.
>
>Most of the recent stuff I read (granted, a small part and rather
>opinionated portion of the total literature) says the expansion
>appears to be speeding up, so I don't think this will be a worry.
>
>carl
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]On
>Behalf Of Owen Densmore
>Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 10:31 AM
>To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>Subject: [FRIAM] Big Bang, Big Crunch: Decrease in Entropy?
>
>
>During a conversation yesterday with Stephen, it occurred to me that
>the second law would be violated at the turning point to the big
>crunch, right?
>
>I.e. if the universe begins to shrink back to a singularity (well, not
>quite if you think the string theory picture is right), wouldn't order
>increase in that era?
>
>         -- Owen
>
>Owen Densmore         908 Camino Santander   Santa Fe, NM 87505
>Cell: 505-570-0168    Home: 505-988-3787     http://backspaces.net
>
>
>============================================================
>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
>Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.: http://www.friam.org

===================================
Jim Rutt
voice:  505-989-1115