# The Final Question?

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by Windy5000, Sep 17, 2017.

1. Can entropy be reversed?

2. It can not be reversed but it can be maintained when you stack it. So after you stack it; it will remain static, no matter the position of whatever it is.

3. I don't know of any undisputed definition or understanding of entropy.

In my opinion, maximum entropy would be a universe completely homogeneous and isotropic at the smallest level.

It seems to me that any departure from that is a decrease in entropy.

Since this universe is not homogeneous and isotropic, it would lead me to believe that indeed entropy can and has been reversed, the question might then be, is the universe currently increasing or decreasing entropy, to which I would say the latter.

• Like x 1
4. Maybe it doesn't need to be or ever has been reversed, the subject (energy/matter) may already be infinite. If it wasn't then how could it have existed in the first place?

5. I think your point more accurately reflects the ultimate 'reality' than the one we actually occupy.

In other words, the finite must ultimately come from the infinite, but we must not confuse one for the other. Matter and energy are not infinite, by definition both are measured and measurable values, whereas infinite is not a value.

I am not stating this authoritatively, but as a conclusion I have reached and have found no counterposition that challenges it.

• Like x 1
6. Infinity may not be a value however in it's definition we are able to find things that are infinite. IE, a gravitational singularity is considered to be infinite.

We are able to prove that a cosmic event known as the big bang occurred through background radiation and what we call dark energy. This space that is the pitch black shell of our universe was once devoid from all energy & matter. To place your eye in the deepest reach of space, you overlook the observable universe.

"Perhaps entropy needs no reversing, perhaps it has already been reversed".

- Snoo

• Winner x 1
7. No harm in theorizing, i'm inclined to hold this as an acceptable answer, a man needs sleep afterall.

• Disagree x 1
8. Infinity, whenever used in mathematics, by definition, can not describe the material reality.

Gravity inside a black hole is certainly not infinite. One of the problems with black holes and the math that is used to describe them, is that they are both idealistic.

In mans arrogance, the idea of renormalizarion came about, which in my estimation, is foolish in two ways. One, it accepts the 'use' of infinity in equations and secondly it is used to 'bring them down' into an area of mathematics that supposedly can describe reality.

Check into it with an open mind and also realize that my criticisms are aimed at the concepts and not you as a person. I believe they are misleading and potentially harmful and I only object to challenge the edifice that is constructed around them.

To be clear, I do believe in a sort of conceptual reality of infinity, but I won't for a moment allow that concept to be hijacked by mathemagicins into convincing people that any aspect of our 'material reality' is infinite.

Listen to the like a of Brian Greene talk about an actually infinite universe, it is sad to the point of being almost laughable.

We digress thought...

• Winner x 1
9. Knowing a weak magnetic field could lead to the formation of ozone holes. A book was written last year proposing a direct link between the demise of Neanderthals, our evolutionary cousins, and a significant decrease of the geomagnetic field intensity that occurred exactly at the same period. (That time, the lead-up to a geomagnetic reversal appears to have been "aborted"; the field weakened but didn't end up flipping.)

Other scientists aren't convinced that there's a connection between pole reversals and species extinctions. "Even if the field becomes very weak, at the Earth's surface we are shielded from radiation by the atmosphere."

Do you see a synthetic alternative to what could very well be quite the topic in the coming decades?

10. #10
Last edited: Oct 3, 2017
Fair enough NM, there will come a time when there is no light and no existence in the universe. If i understand it, for you entropy cannot be reversed, each successor universe is a smaller one than the last?

& Even if the next universe is bigger than the last, your thought is that the dimension or reality that is pumping all this matter into ours has a limited supply of it's own mass.

• Like x 1
11. My first post fairly well describes my tentative position.

I don't think entropy has a solid definition. In my opinion, a null universe would be maximum entropy, and this universe has planets, stars, galaxies, life etc, which are the opposite of entropic, so it seems clear to me entropy can and has been overcome.

I also suspect that the lifelike characteristics of space plasma is another example of reversed entropy.

Physicists Discover Inorganic Dust With Lifelike Qualities

So it seems to be the properties of the universe are such that even apparent non living phenomena are battling against entropy and the ones that survive keep proliferating and conquering entropy.

12. Fascinating read, my mind can't even comprehend what an intelligent non carbon based life form might look like. Reminiscent of Warhammer 40K's fictional hive swarms. I created this thread because a friend at work suggested i listen to the audio tape of a famous biochemistry teacher Isaac Asimov, when conversation was struck about the universe dying out.

It's a good listen if you have some free time, The Last Question.

• Like x 1
13. I always make time to learn, thank you for the link.