How much does entropy control the universe?

>>19164681
Not much. I bet there are aluminiums floating around and rearranging stuff constantly and putting it in order, thus disrupting the natural flow of entropy.

>>19164681
To our knowledge, it's the final boss: An undefeatable force that gurantees everyone and everything dies.

NOW I've only recently been having my 8th existential crisis and damning the universe for giving me consciousness to dread in the first place.

I do wonder if we will ever be able to disregard it, but /sci/ just shat on me for asking if we could exist forever because the answer is apparently that it's physically impossible, then I got sad and came to /x/ to try to see if you guys could make me believe something happened after we physically die so I don't have to suck that up.

>>19164681
Idiot. Space itself is entropy. Nothingness. We are living in darkness quite literally.

>>19164681
A lot. The heat death of the Universe is pretty much inevitable as far as humanity knows.

>>19164910
>came to /x/ to try to see if you guys could make me believe something happened after we physically die so I don't have to suck that up

Energy never dissapears, you are made of it. Also, why would it be physically impossible to forever exist? Even when our universe ends, there are still other universes we could travel to, even if we have to create new ones if we would run out of natural universes.

>>19164681
nigga you can't have a universe without entropy.

>>19164910
If the multiverse hypothesis is true, there are infinite amounts of universes out there, thus there are infinite (you)'s out there, thus making you invincible.

>>19164681
Can you give me a physical example of entropy or make one up for discussion?
What is energy that can NOT be used for work? Hillary's E-mails? ;)

I believe that all this universe where we live, is a massive simulation, done simultaneosly, do you know something about the theory of multiverses, okay, that would be a thing, maybe all of these universes are just like this, but slightly different, like some kind of civilization curious about how to react to "x" situation, with every variation possible, that's one point, do you know about the experiment of the different results if there is a spectator or not? Is an experiment in the one that shooted electrons through a sheet of metal (or anything else, i don't know so much about details on this experiment) with two lines where electrons pass and get in a surface where shows where they landed, when this experiment is running and someone's watching, the results in this surface is two lines of electrons, but when this experiment is done without anyone watching or without being recorded it show 7 lines of electrons, that means that maybe our "reality" is created when an spectator shows up, but the thing is that a simulated living being, can't demonstrate he is living in a simulated universe, cause he is living in a simulated universe, everything around him is simulated.

>>19164967
Yeah, but you didn't answer the question...

>>19164954
>implying the infinite yous are actually you

>>19164948
>energy never disappears
Ending up as a soup of quarks spread so much that they have a 0% chance of colliding with each other is a pretty shitty energy state.

>other universes and creating new ones
That's hopeful thinking for the future generations, however for us it is an absolute improbability. Humanity is barely gonna reach Mars within our lifetimes. Immortality and multiversal travel are currently science fiction, at best.

>>19164681
Energy dissipates into values of near nothingness as the universe infinitely expands because there is a finite amount of energy in existence.

Multiversal travel is currently physically impossible, even if we made one, because we'd have to travel faster than light to hop into it, and you that I would need to be alive when we discovered the technology. Also we'd have to do it before our universe ends, not when it does, as we would then end, too, at least physically.

>>19164681
From a physics standpoint (roughly), entropy describes the number of ways a system's microscopic components can be rearranged while the system's macroscopic properties (temperature, pressure, volume, etc.) remain the same. Macroscopic states that support more rearrangements are higher entropy, while states that support fewer rearrangements are lower entropy. Add to this the assumption that each arrangement of microscopic components is equally probable, and you'll find that higher entropy "macrostates" are more probable than lower entropy ones. That's the idea behind the second law of thermodynamics. A sufficiently large system will spontaneously go from a less probable to a more probable state.

Sorry, I'm explaining this badly. Some of these concepts are kind of abstract, and it's been a while since I've studied them. But to answer OP's question, the second law of thermodynamics is considered pretty solid. The entropy of the universe can never decrease (at least on any finite time scale).

>>19164948
Energy and mass are conserved, but their arrangement is constantly changing. It's like a box sliding along the floor until it comes to rest. The kinetic energy of the box was turned into thermal energy in the box and the floor. Energy is conserved, but entropy has increased.

I can't think of a single observable physical form of entropy ? All energy that can not be converted into mechanical work... ? I don't see any entropy in the world.

>>19164975
How do you define (you)?! If you have a puppet, and you re-create it atom by atom, isn't it then the same puppet?

>>19164976
>Ending up as a soup of quarks spread so much that they have a 0% chance of colliding with each other is a pretty shitty energy state.

See this post:

>>19164755
>I bet there are aluminiums floating around and rearranging stuff constantly and putting it in order, thus disrupting the natural flow of entropy.

It will never end up as spilled fruity loops spread out in space, because intelligent lifeforms will pick it up and re-arrange it.

>>19165045
>intelligent lifeforms will pick it up and re-arrange it
Unfortunately, intelligent lifeforms are as much a part of the natural world as everything else. Any ordering process a lifeform carries out must create disorder elsewhere. It's like if I distill a mix of water and ethanol to separate them. The water and ethanol are lower in entropy now, but whatever energy source was being used to power the distillation process gets disordered (e.g. coal getting burned).

It would be amazing if we could cause entropy to spontaneously decrease. With that kind of technology, you could literally power a metropolis with the thermal energy in an iceburg, or make any chemical out of any other chemical instantly. We would essentially be godlike. Unfortunately, I don't think that's going to happen, unless we unlock some deep secret of quantum mechanics that allows the observer to decide the outcome of their measurement.

>>19165121
>Any ordering process a lifeform carries out must create disorder elsewhere. It's like if I distill a mix of water and ethanol to separate them. The water and ethanol are lower in entropy now, but whatever energy source was being used to power the distillation process gets disordered (e.g. coal getting burned).

Yeah, but the ashes from the coal could be used to create diamonds or used as nutrients to grow plants. I don't think there really is an example of how entropy could be applied to human behaviour.

>>19165174
Takes another energy source (i.e disorders something else) to compress the coal.

>>19165121
If we could decrease entropy we'd literally live 5ever. Erm, assuming biological/digital immortality otherwise, that is.

Speaking of which, immortality may not ever be possible, but longevity certainly can be. What do the spiritual people on /x/ think about all the current research to stop aging?

>>19165550
>Takes another energy source (i.e disorders something else) to compress the coal.
and that disordered something else can also be rearanged back into order. Seriously, entropy comes only from inaction. The human factor is not a field that is covered by physics, it's biology. Since when do the laws of physics and biology were to inermix?!

>>19165707
Biology was always bound by the laws of physics

>>19167399
But they are completely seperate fields of study. You don't have to know any physics to be a biologist

>>19164932
No shut the fuck up.
Stars are real.
The sun is real.
I am real.

>>19167709
Wtf yes you do. You need to know chemistry, at the least, which is bound in physics.

Even if you didn't, that'd be like saying computer programs aren't bound by the laws of physics because a programmer is not a physicist. They're different realms of study but still entangled in reality.

>>19165045
Intelligent lifeforms won't have much to say once their protons decay after a fucktillion years.

>>19167709
Are you retarded boy? Maybe you should read some books.

http://kek.r.cx/

>>19167793
>what is self replication?

>>19167755
I still don't understand why entropy isn't supposed to be anything but some basic law of
>hurr stuff gets broken over time
But at the same time there are people who build stuff back up.

File: entropy.jpg (48KB, 930x544px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 930x544px

Did someone say entropy?

File: 1491967460236.jpg (43KB, 475x618px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 475x618px

>>19167714
It doesn't matter.
Stars go out.
The sun will too.
We all die.

>>19167793
>proton decay
>>>/x/

Oh.

Well yeah there's no evidence protons decay; the one group that's been saying they do still can't provide documentation for it. They said at best, it might possibly happen several orders of magnitude greater than the age of the universe in the future, and even that number goes up.

>>19167914
Eventually everything's equally broken and nothing is together to put other things together.

>>19168187
>Eventually everything's equally broken and nothing is together to put other things together.
If you break a lego building over and over again, it still can be rebuild the same over and over again. A lego block doesn't just magically dissapear.

>>19168187
If we have constantly self replicating nanobots, they will self replicate forever. There is nothing that would stop making the process of self replication stop.

>>19168313
That is if they self replicate on the smallest level, literrally taking the strings and using them as lego.

>>19164681
The act of creation and destruction are in balance to much of one thing is not good and too much of another results in loss. Its all Energy.

>>19164932
Space has energy, down to the cosmological constant, which i call Chaos Energy, it is from this force that all creation can manifest but eventually will return too in its cycle.

>>19168300
There's not enough available energy.
Heat death/big freeze theory for the fate of the universe means everything is the same in terms of energy. You can't do anything unless there's an energy gradient.

>>19169023
We don't know how to use ZPE though.

is the universe a closed system?

is it me or does the op's picture Kina look like a frog? you......like kek.....