order and entropy....

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

. . We are approaching the subject & description, of the - initial - start or source of ENERGY

 

This is because :-

 

If we are considering Energy's , usability and flow . This impinges on the related descriptor of Entropy

 

Then we need to address its initial origin and its ultimate end . Namely its Source and Sink .

 

What are the candidates for the Initial supply of ENERGY ?

This will surely dictate the nature of ORDER and ENTROPY ?

 

Is it simply Potential ? Charge ? or What ?

 

mike

The original thermodynamic interpretation was simply 'an energy which is no longer capable of doing work'.

 

See Above .

Edited October 25, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[petrushka.googol]

. .Is it simply Potential ? Charge ? or What ?

 

 

 

I picture it as a kind of thermodynamic potential energy that follows a potential gradient (moving from a quasi-stable state to a stable one. (not in the conventional sense mind you).

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I picture it as a kind of thermodynamic potential energy that follows a potential gradient (moving from a quasi-stable state to a stable one. (not in the conventional sense mind you).

I am very inclined to ' imagine '. , much like you describe :-

 

Potential ( namely an attractive or repulsive force of immense proportions, Tera Tera Tera Tera etc, electron volts ) , existing , by whatever means . This in a static form , like some colossal globe on a .' Van de graph , electrostatic generator ' as a charge .

 

( The source of this charge ' God only knows ' possible pun , or no pun. )

 

The routes of discharge are then found in a myriad of forms over the course of the cosmic history. Taking entropy from ' zero to a maximum ' over the lifetime of the universe.

 

Whether there are reversals of the increasing of entropy overall is / was the subject of another discussion.

 

Suffice to say we see charge appearing in many of the atomic particles , either in + - or neutral charge . Also charge on the move becomes the source of magnetic fields , and visa versa . Electrons and there movement accomplish the distribution of charge , which in turn makes atoms, reactions , and a plethora of changes within the workings of the universe.

 

This monumentus flow of charge through its diversity of channels, routes, swaps and other pathways , could well represent the flow of energy in the universe , thus the change in entropy from zero to a high value.

 

Mike

Edited October 30, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

So following the flow of charge through the labyrinth channels of the universe , could give us some insight into the change of entropy ?

 

Mike

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Charge can be seen across , many if not all the standard model of Atomic Particles.

image removed by mod

 

Even the Neutron supposedly no charge consists of Quarks with charges that add up to an overall zero.

 

Mike

Edited November 8, 2014 by imatfaal

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

mike

 

I have removed your chart of the standard model. I am unsure of the copyright status. As the chart is sold by the authors I think it unlikely that it is freely distributable on the net especially as it bears a copyright symbol - if you have any positive information that it is free from copyright for web-reproduction PM me and I will get it back

 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Link to Standard Model. . Charge . can be seen by using Magnifier . Middle of three Values .

 

Link : - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model#mediaviewer/File:Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg

 

EG CHARGE values : 2/3, -1/3, -1,+or- 1 , 0.

[ remembering 0 can be the result of balanced positive and negative charge, or no charge at all ]

 

Mike

------------------------------- --------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ------------------------------ ----------

PS. imatfaal See PM

Edited November 8, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[imatfaal]

 

Standard Model of Elementary Particles

 

By MissMJ [CC-BY-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

Standard Model of Elementary Particles

 

By MissMJ [CC-BY-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

 

So charge is very integral and spread out across the particle aspect of the universes construction.

 

The sum total of all those charges across all the particles present in the original universe soup or plasma or fireball must add up to some colossal value of charge, which could be that original charge that I previously spoke of. Or was this charge developed by the origination ( by whatever means they originated ) , of the particles themselves.

 

Like , if you hit a body of water with a 'bl......y great metal plate'. A mass of bubbles would be formed each containing a small amount of elastic energy in the bubbles , whose sum would equal to the kinetic energy of the 'bl......y great metal plate' as it smashed into the body of water.

 

mike

 

Ps I suppose that could also apply to the spin content, and mass contest

Edited November 8, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[studiot]

I don't follow what this has to to with either order or entropy.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I don't follow what this has to to with either order or entropy.

Well because for entropy to be zero at the start.

It must be totally ordered, simple .

 

Eg one huge simple ordered thing .

 

Like a huge potential

 

Say an huge electrical potential ?

 

Mike

[petrushka.googol]

Well because for entropy to be zero at the start.

It must be totally ordered, simple .

 

Eg one huge simple ordered thing .

 

Like a huge potential

 

Say an huge electrical potential ?

 

Mike

 

One doubt : Can entropy really be zero at initial state? Zero entropy implies perfect symmetry but it is plausible relative to the initial conditions of the Universe and infinite density that density was very nearly infinity but not quite there. Some infinitely small deviation from the same. This inherent instability precipitated the Big Bang. Without this infinitesimal inequality time would not have unraveled space and the Universe as we know it would not have existed.

Edited November 9, 2014 by petrushka.googol

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

One doubt : Can entropy really be zero at initial state? Zero entropy implies perfect symmetry but it is plausible relative to the initial conditions of the Universe and infinite density that density was very nearly infinity but not quite there. Some infinitely small deviation from the same. This inherent instability precipitated the Big Bang. Without this infinitesimal inequality time would not have unraveled space and the Universe as we know it would not have existed.

 

One of the founding fathers of Quantum physics, Relativity and Cosmology - John Archibald Wheeler- said:

 

 

" if I am asked to leave one sentence for the world it is ' The boundary of a boundary is zero ' "

 

One of The ultimate boundaries must surely be the beginning of the universe. The big zero.

 

This is the ultimate in super-symmetry . Rotational in-variance. And thus reality A good start for Zero Entropy. .

 

mike

Edited November 9, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Am I right in speaking in terms of the ultimate initial potential to be surrounding the characteristic of CHARGE ?

 

Or is charge just one of several other ingredients ?

 

Such as Spin ? chirality ( handedness ) ? Or do the other ingredients stem from Charge. ?

 

Or, Are we content to sum everything under the term ENERGY . But what is that ?

 

Other than : - Energy makes things happen !

 

Mike

Edited November 13, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[petrushka.googol]

My questions :

 

Would pure energy or its equivalent mass be of greater entropy (although both are manifestations of the same thing).?

 

Is a pure vacuum at higher entropy that a space with uniform energy density across its magnitude ?

[Mordred]

Pure energy does not exist on its own. However let's ignore that in the gist of the question. Let's assume the temperature is high enough for all the particles to be in thermal equilibrium. At say 10^-36 seconds. In this state the properties can be described by its thermodynamics only.

 

Photons would be the only particle not in thermal equilibrium. As a 1/2 spin particle with its anti particle the entropy is a total of 2.

 

Now let's move forward till just prior to when atoms can form.

 

Add up all the particle species. Including leptons, fermions, hadrons and bosons etc. Tally up the number of degrees of freedom etc.

 

You will have a higher entropy the more particles are not in thermal equilibrium. If you start adding elements the entropy continues to increase.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Pure energy does not exist on its own. However let's ignore that in the gist of the question. Let's assume the temperature is high enough for all the particles to be in thermal equilibrium. At say 10^-36 seconds. In this state the properties can be described by its thermodynamics only.

Photons would be the only particle not in thermal equilibrium. As a 1/2 spin particle with its anti particle the entropy is a total of 2.

......

 

What state would the particles be in at this time ? And what would the charge be doing at that time ? Or are you saying the immense temperature causes the charge to form ?

 

What does the picture of the standard model look like at this time ? Still like This ? Or what quite ?

 

This :- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AStandard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg

 

Mike

Edited November 17, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mordred]

Essentially at high enough temperatures and density any reactions that occur quickly decouple. The particles of the model you posted is still present however they cannot be discernable from one another. Basically they all look like a photon/quarks gluon plasma. If you look at the GUT models. They give rough values of when the individual particles decouple with stability.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

 

You can see the decoupling stages on this page. It's based on the SU(5) standard particle model

 

Different models have variations and differing decoupling phase transitions. There is too many variations to name them all.

If you look under my signature there is two articles

 

Particle physics of the Early universe.

 

And the free textbook by Liddle.

 

Both cover what I stated above. They also cover big bang nucleosynthesis

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf"Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde

http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

Chapter 3 of the second text.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdfThe Algebra of Grand Unified Theories John Baez and John Huerta

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdf

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdfGRAND UNIFIED THEORIES

 

These articles are decent on GUT

In the standard model the thermodynamic properties can be accurately described by the vacuum equation of state. This applies at temperatures above the vacuum expectation value. 246 GeV

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

 

See the scalar modelling formula at bottom of the above page.

 

How the VeV is derived is covered in the material above.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_expectation_value

 

You can see it is based on the Higgs field

The materials provided covers all this including VeV. The SO(10) particle model has the same VeV. However their is a seesaw instability around 10^16 GeV. This can lead to a possible explanation for inflation. The SO(10) also predicts dark matter as right hand sterile neutrinos.

 

It was never intended as a GUT model however it is so successful it is a strong candidate.

DARK MATTER AS STERILE NEUTRINOS

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301

http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954

 

Higg's inflation possible dark energy

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738

http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755

http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801

 

Here is some related articles

The lie algebra reference (Algebra of GUT theories) above I found extremely handy to understand the other materials.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Mordred

[Essay]

My questions :

 

Would pure energy or its equivalent mass be of greater entropy (although both are manifestations of the same thing).?

 

Is a pure vacuum at higher entropy that a space with uniform energy density across its magnitude ?

 

PetG, I don't understand your first question, but I'd suggest if you learn more about entropy, you would find that it is more about space than mass.

 

And for your second question; since they are both uniform, they should both have the same entropy, unless you are asking about their entropy relative to something outside of the "space," or boundaries, that you asked about.

===

 

In general, I'd suggest trying to see entropy as more about "order/disorder," and how that affects the distribution of energy or potential for change ...within a given space or system. Too many people think about entropy as if it is tangible, or at least some sort of "essence" or "potential" traveling around. It would be better to think of it as a sort of accounting tool, which accounts for the change in conditions that accompany chemical reactions.

 

Take, for example, any chemical reaction, and the "initial conditions" that exist for whatever reaction is occurring. As the reaction continues, and products build up, the "conditions" are no longer the same as the "initial conditions." The space where the chemical reaction is occurring has changed, and entropy helps account for how ongoing change affects the chemical reaction. Most importantly, how the boundaries are defined for the space (of whatever 'entropy' is being accounted for), makes a huge difference. Misunderstandings occur when people don't get the part about properly defining the boundaries of the system.

 

~

[MigL]

I find the 'order/disorder' concept more confusing for people not familiar with entropy.

But that is only an observation from postings on this and other forums.

 

I suppose a chemist would find the concept of 'energy available/not available for a reaction' ( I don't remember, is that Gibb's ) useful in describing entropy just as physicist do. As the useful, available energy decreases , so entropy increases ( remember the box with a partition separating a gas and vacuum ?).

 

If the association is not made between order/disorder and degrees of freedom, it is very difficult to say whether a system is more or less ordered, and as a result, whether entropy has increased or decreased.

[hoola]

If pure energy cannot exist on it's own, then what is the composition of strings, which I have understood described as pure energy?

[Strange]

They are fundamental and not composed of anything (except string ).

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

They are fundamental and not composed of anything (except string ).

 

My experiments with mechanical strings are such that you can input a certain amount of energy, and they will vibrate at a fixed frequency, or at least a set of frequencies ( fundamental, First harmonic, second harmonic, third harmonic ). If the energy is increased beyond a certain point, the string( seems not to want to, or is unable to absorb any more energy ) so the oscillation breaks into another dimension ! ( from 2nd dimension to 3rd dimension -both )

 

Mike

Edited November 22, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

My experiments with mechanical strings ...

 

Which are not fundamental, there is a limit to what you can deduce from such experiments. Remember that string theory is a purely mathematical model.

[hoola]

how can a string not be composed of anything and remain a viable entity? If strings are "strings of numbers", that would satisfy the requirement of allowing them a modus of existence, particular properties, and avenue of analysis...