Advertisement

Science Friday
Universe has more entropy than thought
New calculations suggest that the cosmos may be a bit closer to heat death
Web edition : Friday, October 2nd, 2009
font_down font_up Text Size

For all its tumult — erupting stars, colliding galaxies, collapsing black holes — the cosmos is a surprisingly orderly place. Theoretical calculations have long shown that the entropy of the universe — a measure of its disorder — is but a tiny fraction of the maximum allowable amount.

A new calculation of entropy upholds that general result but suggests that the universe is messier than scientists had thought — and slightly further along on its gradual journey to death, two Australian cosmologists conclude.

An analysis by Chas Egan of the Australian National University in Canberra and Charles Lineweaver of the University of New South Wales in Sydney indicates that the collective entropy of all the supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies is about 100 times higher than previously calculated. Because supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to cosmic entropy, the finding suggests that the entropy of the universe is also about 100 times larger than previous estimates, the researchers reported online September 23 at arXiv.org.

Entropy quantifies the number of different microscopic states that a physical system can have while looking the same on a large scale. For instance, an omelet has higher entropy than an egg because there are more ways for the molecules of an omelet to rearrange themselves and still remain an omelet than for an egg, notes cosmologist Sean Carroll of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.

A black hole is the entropy champ because there are myriad ways for all the material that has fallen into it to be arranged microscopically while the black hole retains the same numerical values for its observable properties — charge, mass and spin.

Researchers who previously calculated the cosmic sum of black hole entropy had assumed that, on average, each galaxy houses a 10 million solar-mass black hole at its center. Under this assumption, researchers had determined that supermassive black holes contribute an entropy of about 10102, in units derived from a quantity known as Boltzmann’s constant.
 
In contrast, Egan and Lineweaver relied on new data that included a fuller range of the masses of supermassive black holes rather than just using the average mass. “The upshot was that much more entropy is contributed by a smaller population of much larger, 1-billion-solar-mass black holes,” Egan says.

Carroll says that the team’s calculation looks sensible. “I see no reason to doubt their numbers,” he says.

Having a more reliable entropy estimate is important, says Egan, because for life or other complex phenomena to exist, the entropy of the universe must be less than the maximum possible value. Consider, he notes, when hot water is poured into a cold bath. Initially the hot and cold water are separate and the system is orderly — it has low entropy. But once the hot and cold water are thoroughly mixed, the entropy is maximized and no further heat flow is possible.

In the case of the universe, Egan says, “we'd like to know [when and] if the entropy will eventually reach a maximum value, marking the end of all dissipative processes, including life.” Physicists have dubbed that maximum entropy “heat death.”

Egan and Lineweaver’s new value for the entropy of the universe is still a billionth of a billionth the maximum possible entropy that researchers have estimated. Nonetheless, the new value “indicates that that the universe is a bit closer to the heat death than previously computed,” comments theorist Paul Davies of Arizona State University in Tempe.

Not everyone agrees that the higher entropy contributed by supermassive black holes puts the universe closer to heat death. Theorist Ned Wright of the University of California, Los Angeles says that because the extra entropy is locked inside the black holes, the rest of the universe should have lower entropy and be further away from heat death.     

The new entropy calculation also highlights a cosmic puzzle, Carroll says. The entropy was relatively small in the early universe (1088), bigger now (10104), but still falls far short of the maximum (10122). No known physical principle can explain why the cosmic entropy is so low. But it’s a good thing because the low value “is responsible for everything we experience about the [unidirectional] flow of time — breaking eggs, growing older and dying, remembering the past but not the future,” notes Carroll. “The universe is incredibly more orderly than it has any right to be. Egan and Lineweaver have shown that it's just a bit more disorderly than we thought.”


Found in: Atom & Cosmos
Comments 15
  • An explanation of entropy that is imaginatively written -- and appreciated.
    David David
    Oct. 3, 2009 at 3:57pm
  • Ron, I believe death is just a matter of overheat and we will remain dying whenever we stay away of the understanding of our own purposes, origens and destinations.
    There is more to life, unbelievable more, than just shiny brights on the skies. We need to look closer to the planet, to yourselfs, to understand, once for all, that the Universe, outside us, is the same to any living individual, living been. This is why it moves, around himself moves the individuals. We flotate, each of us, on our own dreams. Can you visuzalize that? Our wings are our outsides, and flapping they get darker and brighter ahead of us. We fly.
    ketinunkantim ketinunkantim
    Oct. 3, 2009 at 4:52pm
  • ... too ourselves ... correcting back there
    (and clarifying: we are butterflies, days are the right wing and nights the lefts... we only exists in our minds, inside our bodies... we are butterflies dreaming to be a man unable to comprehend that)
    ketinunkantim ketinunkantim
    Oct. 3, 2009 at 4:55pm
  • How do you get from the reachable number of microstates (the correct definition, as mentioned) to disorder? I don't think you can make a sensible definition of disorder. You can measure randomness by way of Kolmogorov entropy. (So it's a relative measure.) But measures of information theory entropy aren't physical measures of entropy.

    "No known physical principle can explain why the cosmic entropy is so low."

    That is news for this layman. For example, eternal inflation AFAIU maintains initial low entropy in its inflation regions.

    [And even further, if you aren't satisfied with extending the process boundlessly back, or by the improbability that any initial conditions would be close enough to this fix point of the process to get to it, one can AFAIU invoke random fluctuations and unbounded time to get a sufficiently large domain of low entropy to start it off. But that wasn't really necessary to question the above claim.]
    Torbjörn Larsson, OM Torbjörn Larsson, OM
    Oct. 3, 2009 at 10:38pm
  • On the nature of the entropy of the universe:

    Basis For A Unified Field Theory

    Hidden Dimensions?
    A suggested something that's worth a "work on".
    The science establishment would undoubtedly dismsiss it...


    The Basic Implications Of E=Total[m(1 + D)]
    [Link was removed] #3108
    a recapitulation


    A. Its essential statement

    "Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time to the early hot dense "Big Bang" phase, using general relativity, yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. At age 10^-35 seconds the Universe begins with a cataclysm that generates space and time, as well as all the matter and energy the Universe will ever hold."

    E = Energy content of the universe
    m = mass content of the universe
    D = distance, Total = in all spatial directions, from the point of Big-Bang, of singularity's energy-mass superposition

    At D=0, E was = m and both E and m were, together, all the energy and matter the Universe will ever hold. Since the onset of the cataclysm, E remains constant and m diminishes as D increases.
    The increase of D is the initial inflation, followed by the ongoing expansion, of what became the galactic clusters.

    At 10^-35 seconds, D was already a fraction of a second above zero. This is when gravity starts. This is what started gravity. At this instance starts the energetic space texture, starts the straining of the space texture, and starts the space-texture-memory, gravity, that most probably will eventually overcome expansion and initiate re-impansion back to singularity.


    B. Some of its further essential implications beyond Einstein-Hubble and re classical-quantum physics

    And again and again : "On The Origin Of Origins"
    [Link was removed] #2753

    1. It promotes commonsensical scientific critical thinking beyond Einstein-Hubble.

    The universe is the archetype of quantum within classical physics, which is the fractal oneness of the universe.

    Astronomically there are two physics. A classical Newtonian physics behaviour of and between galactic clusters, and a quantum physics behaviour WITHIN the galactic clusters.

    The onset of big-bang's inflation, the cataclysmic resolution of the Original Superposition, started gravity, with formation - BY DISPERSION - of galactic clusters that behave as classical Newtonian bodies and continuously reconvert their original pre-inflation masses back to energy, thus fueling the galactic clusters expansion, and with endless quantum-within-classical intertwined evolutions WITHIN the clusters in attempt to delay-resist this reconversion.

    2. There is no call, no need, for any dark energy. The energy of the universe is conserved. The mass of the universe is conserved in the form of energy, the energy fueling the clusters expansion. At the next universal singularity, at the next D = 0, there will again be E = m for a small fraction of a second...just wait and see...

    Following Newton (1) gravity is decreased when mass is decreased and (2) acceleration of a body is given by dividing the force acting upon it by its mass. By plain common sense the combination of those two 'laws' may explain the accelerating cosmic expansion of galaxy clusters and the laws that drive it, based on the E/ m/ D relationship suggested above..

    3. There is no call, no need, for a Higgs Particle.

    The resolution of energy-mass superposition is reverted when D = 0. Shockingly sad, but must be soberingly faced rationally.


    C. Its implications re the origin and nature of life beyond Darwin, re selection for survival

    For Nature, Earth's biosphere is one of the many ways of temporarily constraining an amount of energy within a galaxy within a galactic cluster, for thus avoiding, as long as possible, spending this particularly constrained amount as part of the fuel that maintains the clusters expansion.

    Genes are THE Earth's organisms and ALL other organisms are their temporary take-offs.

    For Nature genes are genes are genes. None are more or less important than the others. Genes and their take-offs, all Earth organisms, are temporary energy packages and the more of them there are the more enhanced is the biosphere, Earth's life, Earth's temporary storage of constrained energy. This is the origin, the archetype, of selected modes of survival.

    The early genes came into being by solar energy and lived a very long period solely on direct solar energy. Metabolic energy, the indirect exploitation of solar energy, evolved at a much later phase in the evolution of Earth's biosphere.


    Dov Henis
    (Comments from 22nd century)
    Updated Life's Manifest May 2009
    [Link was removed] #entry412704
    [Link was removed] #2321
    Dov Henis Dov Henis
    Oct. 5, 2009 at 3:56am
  • After reading many articles and papers on the subject of cosmic entropy, I'd side with Torbjorn Larsson's take given an eternal inflation cosmology, which seems to gaining acceptance among a growing number of cosmologists and astrophysicists. Wiki has an entry called Chaotic Inflation theory that includes an eternal inflation section and a great overview of the birth of Inflationary Cosmology and where the field now stands. The page can be found here: [Link was removed] . BTW, a great, clearly written and informative piece Ron, as per usual!
    Jon Hanford Jon Hanford
    Oct. 5, 2009 at 11:25am
  • For an in depth look at Eternal Inflation cosmology, check out Alan Guth's 2007 paper for a broad, in depth look at this theory here: [Link was removed] .
    Jon Hanford Jon Hanford
    Oct. 5, 2009 at 11:31am
  • RE: Universe has more entropy than thought

    YES, THERE IS VERY LITTLE 'THOUGHT' IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE.
    Roger McCook Roger McCook
    Oct. 6, 2009 at 12:18pm
  • Curious the news cycle. I posted about this over a week ago including a brief (technical) explanation of entropy and the phenomena involved.
    [Link was removed]
    Alexander Fry Alexander Fry
    Oct. 6, 2009 at 5:42pm
  • RE: Universe has more entropy than thought

    YES, THERE IS VERY LITTLE 'THOUGHT' IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE

    haha that made me laugh!
    RonC RonC
    Oct. 8, 2009 at 10:37am
  • How does the nanoengine change that equation?

    Science friction?

    [Link was removed]
    Dredd Blog Dredd Blog
    Oct. 13, 2009 at 12:17pm
  • Concept of space-time brane implies existence of pair of thermodynamical time arrows, thus making discussions about entropy evolution irrelevant.

    [Link was removed]
    Zephir Zephir
    Nov. 8, 2009 at 6:18am

  • [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    m9bnat m9bnat m9bnat m9bnat
    Jan. 3, 2010 at 10:04pm

  • [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    m9bnat m9bnat m9bnat m9bnat
    Jan. 5, 2010 at 7:19pm
  • I tend to agree with Ned Wright. The bathtub analogy is correct for an observer outside the bathtub. For someone inside the bathtub, the entropy at one point can decrease and increase at another point, such that the outside observer does not detect any total increase in entropy, and according to him, the bath tub has reached its 'heat death'
    God Zilla God Zilla
    Jan. 10, 2010 at 4:29pm
Post a comment (Please note: All links will be removed from comments.)

Please login or register to participate.


Advertisement
Citations & References:
seperator
  • Chas A. Egan, Charles H. Lineweaver, A Larger Estimate of the Entropy of the Universe. (online only, posted Sept. 23) [Go to]
Reader Favorites:
seperator
SN on the Web:
seperator