Is the heat death of the universe theoretically survivable?
I'm arguing with my jackass brother, he says that as long as an inhabited planet produces enough heat and energy, that it can sustain itself through the nearly absolute-zero temperature of the rest of the universe.
My brother says that the universe can survive maximum entropy because the theoretical planet which is creating a large amount of heat and energy is insulated, and would start creating energy BEFORE maximum entropy, and therefore would be unaffected somehow by it because so much heat is already stored inside of the insulated atmosphere of the planet
does he not understand that this planet producing heat violates the definition of _maximum_ entropy?
Also even if we accept this situation, a finite amount of mass can only ever produce a finite amount of energy.
Eventually you'd run out.
He says that carbon nanotubes generate an infinite amount of electricity because it recycles it from the air as electricity is spent.
He says that entropy only applies to un-isolated areas, and because the planet is insulated it is basically immune.
Heat death isn't some external circumstance that you can survive by having enough resources; it means that you have no more energy left except in the form of heat. If the planet still has energy sources, heat death hasn't happened yet.
The heat death of the universe literally implies that such a planet would have already entirely cooled. It's a zero energy state for the universe. Not an average energy of zero, fucking flat big honking goose egg zero.
>He says that carbon nanotubes generate an infinite amount of electricity because it recycles it from the air as electricity is spent.
Well, that's fucking retarded. That would be a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.
There are two reasons why your brother is wrong.
1) Heat death occurs long after every star has expired. Since star power is the ONLY thing which provides energy for our world, we would be unable to sustain life after every star has expired.
Hypothetically speaking, we could harvest energy from black holes after every star has expired. This would allow us to maintain life for billions of years after all the stars are gone. However, by the very DEFINITION of heat death, heat death doesn't occur until AFTER every black hole has evaporated. (Yes, black holes evaporate). This leads us to the second reason:
2) After heat death has occured, the universe will be completely devoid of usable energy. So even if, by some miracle of nature, we still exist on a planet in a universe devoid of energy , our planet will cool down to absolute zero and discintegrate, just like the rest of the universe. We are unable to sustain ourselves without an outside heat source.
Note that this scenario is a paradoxical because, by the very definition of heat death, if a planet harboring life exists in the universe then heat death has not yet occurred.
Which brings me to what I should have started with. The DEFINITION of HEAT DEATH is that all the energy has dissipated in the universe into completely un-usable forms (basically lone photons separated by vast amounts of space in between). Nothing can come into creation from this void. It's over. Finished.
Actually this is not correct. The universe will of course still contain energy, because energy cannot be destroyed. However, due to the expansion of the universe, this energy will be dissipated uniformly throughout an extremely vast universe and so and one would be unable to achieve any usable work from it.
Ok, so the core issue you have is that your brother believes in being able to create free energy, from nothing. If one was able to just create energy, then yes, we could survive heat death. While the rest of the universe dies, we could maintain a usable planet for eternity.
Unfortunately, this is impossible. Unless scientists can somehow discover how to harvest whatever energy source is responsible for the accelerating expansion of our universe, this could never happen. We cannot yet (and very probably, ever) create energy from nothing.
The idea of heat death is the notion that as a system reaches equilibrium, it becomes trends to a higher state of entropy. The Universe expands, the stars run out of fusion need nucleons like hydrogen and helium. Given everything is expanding the light becomes dimmer and more red shifted.
Then as everything races away, dark energy disrupts the cycles, after 13,571,113,171,923 x 10^999 earth years, gravity causes everything to recombine this time gaining enough acceleration for the double inversion black hole.Which may, or may not work. *smokes weed*
Can't cheat entropy, bro. Nope. They all tried and they all failed.
>He says that carbon nanotubes generate an infinite amount of electricity because it recycles it from the air as electricity is spent
your brother sounds like a fucking schizophrenic
>would start creating energy BEFORE maximum entropy
Sounds like no one in here knows anything about thermodynamics.
That thing is basically the first law of thermodynamics. It says the total energy of a system is equal to the heat and work that it does.
Problem is, you got this other law of thermodynamics where the entropy of the universe is always increasing, which as a consequence has that you can't do 100% efficient work so eventually all ordered energy useful enough to do work will all turn into just orderless, unusable heat energy.
>star power is the ONLY thing which provides energy for our world
Not entirely true. Geothermal is a thing. If the sun suddenly disappeared, yeah the humans would die, but you'd still have creatures surviving around geothermal vents and whatnot.