Your "what if" is entirely possible as thought may be just another form of energy - made up of matter.
This concept/theory is presently being researched at the Institute of Noetic Sciences
The entropy S1 of the hot region is defined as
S1=qT1
The entropy S2 of the cold region is
S2=qT2
Therefore, during the energy transfer, the change in entropy is
ΔS=S2−S1=qT2−qT1=q(1T2−1T1)
Since T2<T1,1T2>1T1, and ΔS is positive.
The total entropy of the system increases.
Since energy never flows spontaneously in the other direction, the total entropy of the universe is always increasing.
Energy always flows downhill, and this causes an increase of entropy.
Entropy is the spreading out of energy, and energy tends to spread out as much as possible.
It flows spontaneously from a hot (i.e. highly energetic) region to a cold (less energetic) region.
As a result, energy becomes evenly distributed across the two regions, and the temperature of the two regions becomes equal.
The same thing happens on a much larger scale. The Sun and every other star are radiating energy into the universe.
However, they can’t do it forever. Eventually the stars will cool down, and heat will have spread out so much that there won’t be warmer objects and cooler objects.
Everything will be the same very cold temperature.
Once everything is at the same temperature, there’s no reason for anything to change what it’s doing.
The universe will have run down completely, and the entropy of the universe will be as high as it is ever going to get.
I honestly think the entropy thing is wrong. The entire concept is wrong. There's no reason for the stars to cool down unless a universal scheme is being postulated which is wrong, a la magical creation myth of the Big Bang.
Perhaps so. But aren't the stars cooling? Dying out? Perhaps the entropy picture is wrong because the dying stars are somehow being replaced, the universe remains balanced with no change in entropy what so ever. Perhaps new matter is being made - after all.
Much of present thinking is grounded in Gravity. It's existence explains current cosmological theories.
Our understanding of it has only scratched the surface, although thought otherwise by leading scientists.
For myself, before a Theory of Everything can be made, the issue of -
Time
is of primary importance. How time interacts with space and matter/energy holds the key.
I honestly think the entropy thing is wrong. The entire concept is wrong. There's no reason for the stars to cool down unless a universal scheme is being postulated which is wrong, a la magical creation myth of the Big Bang.
Do you think there is any reason for a coal fire to cool down?
If you do, you understand why a star cools down (it's just a different sort of fuel).
Energy always flows downhill, and this causes an increase of entropy.
Entropy is the spreading out of energy, and energy tends to spread out as much as possible.
It flows spontaneously from a hot (i.e. highly energetic) region to a cold (less energetic) region.
As a result, energy becomes evenly distributed across the two regions, and the temperature of the two regions becomes equal.
The same thing happens on a much larger scale. The Sun and every other star are radiating energy into the universe.
However, they can’t do it forever. Eventually the stars will cool down, and heat will have spread out so much that there won’t be warmer objects and cooler objects.
Everything will be the same very cold temperature.
Once everything is at the same temperature, there’s no reason for anything to change what it’s doing.
The universe will have run down completely, and the entropy of the universe will be as high as it is ever going to get.
As I used a very different viewpoint on entropy earlier, it's worth pointing out that there are vastly fewer microstates corresponding to two volumes of gas at two temperatures than the same gas all at a single temperature (reached by heat flow between them). It is enlightening to see calculations for simple examples of this sort of thing.
I honestly think the entropy thing is wrong. The entire concept is wrong. There's no reason for the stars to cool down unless a universal scheme is being postulated which is wrong, a la magical creation myth of the Big Bang.
Do you think there is any reason for a coal fire to cool down?
If you do, you understand why a star cools down (it's just a different sort of fuel).
A coal fire is not the universe, Elroch. You are working on the principle that the universe is a closed system but it obviously isn't.
A coal fire burns fuel to transform it (plus oxygen) into a lower entropy state, involving production of heat and light. Then it runs out of fuel and cools down to ambient temperature.
A star burns fuel to transform it into a lower entropy state, involving production of heat and light. Then it runs out of fuel and cools down to ambient temperature.
A big stars does the same, but can also go supernova and leave a neutron star or black hole, but it still leaves a cooling remnant in the end.
We're talking about the universe though.
QUOTE "The universe will have run down completely, and the entropy of the universe will be as high as it is ever going to get."
Obviously isn't?
Does this not presume the universe is infinite - which remains entirely in theory? The universe is described by definition as being an open system, being the entire picture. But if it's finite, the picture changes. I do not believe in any infinities. Infinity is abstract thought. A construct/tool of mathematics and not a description of nature.
Is all of this on topic?
Certainly so. The properties of the universe determines whether or not randomness exists.
I gave one explanation of entropy, not necessarily that I personally am in agreement with the quote
I first came into contact with entropy in the thermodynamics course in a mechanical engineering degree that I dropped out of in about 1972. I didn't like the concept. There were too many black boxes attached to it for my liking. Seemed an artificial concept.
Obviously isn't?
Does this not presume the universe is infinite - which remains entirely in theory? The universe is described by definition as being an open system, being the entire picture. But if it's finite, the picture changes. I do not believe in any infinities. Infinity is abstract thought. A construct/tool of mathematics and not a description of nature.
Is all of this on topic?
Certainly so. The properties of the universe determines whether or not randomness exists.>>
My comment would be as follows. Clearly, infinity is an ideal concept. We take ideas that come from extrapolations of observations and conclude that whilst they don't coincide with the ideality of a conceptual infinity, so that we cannot say that practical infinities exist and indeed to do so would seem to be anomalous with experience, even so, some things tend towards infinity, conceptually speaking. So that whilst we can't rightfully assert that real infinities exist, our ideas about the universe do more or less need to draw on such an idea, A grey subject, maybe.
Well, anyway.. I still don't believe in pure randomness. Cloaked intervention of some sort has always been with us. Always outside the perimeter of explanation, with that frustrating look of gleefulness on its face. Proof & Faith.. Eternal friends, or eternal enemies? Humanity has always had more questions than answers. So we have always lived on the faith that things will always work themselves out.!?
If you have quantum interactions that appear random but which are determined according to the unseen variable principle, what is it that causes the unseen variables to act in such a manner that they cause an effect which simulates randomness? And I think we should also ask "why?" Real randomness is so much more Occam'srazorish.
The second law of thermodynamics is based entirely on a notion that can be reduced to this: if there are some number of fixed states and you split those states up into two groups where one group is much bigger than the other group, then at some later time you are more likely to find yourself in a state in the larger group.
From most states this would tell you nothing very interesting, but an empirical fact is that the Universe is in a very low entropy state, and comes from a state that was way lower entropy), so you spend the life of the Universe finding yourself in bigger and bigger subsets of the whole.
I suppose you could say pretty much everything else comes down to how close states are to each other. The Universe does not tend to flip suddenly into very remote states, it's (almost) always small changes. The speed of light surely has a lot to say about this.