Is there a conflict between "The Big Bang" and the first two laws of thermodynamics?

Question

First Law: Matter is neither created nor destroyed.
Second Law: Entropy law.
(And explain that please, in brief and easy words, because I'm just curious, it's not a homework or anything).
---Please answer based on SCIENTIFIC studies ONLY.
Thanks

Answer 1

I am by no means an expert on this subject. But I have taken several thermodynamics classes. I'll give you my best educated guess...

The Big Bang theory doesn't consist of the creation of matter. It's more like ALL the matter in the universe, everything you can think of, was condensed into a single point. The density of this point is so unimaginably huge, but none the less this is what the Big Bang theory states. So no matter was created, energy is conserved, the First Law holds.

The second law of thermodynamics states that for any process, the change in entropy for the universe must be greater than or equal to zero. Entropy is simply a measure of the "disorder" of a system. So the universe favors increases in entropy, or disorder. That's why a condensed gas will expand from a higher pressure into a lower pressure system spontaneously. As the gas expands, the individual molecules move farther apart and the bulk becomes more disordered. So the Big Bang is absolutely in agreement with the second law. The more disordered the matter in the universe, the better. After the Big Bang huge amounts of mass came together, through the influence of gravity, to form stars, planets, etc. Now this seems to violate the second law. However, remember that the second law states that for any process the total change in entropy of the UNIVERSE must increase. So large amounts of mass would absolutely be allowed to clump together, so long as the overall disorder of the universe continued to increase. This holds true. As the first stars began to form, all matter and energy in the universe began to move outward from the source of the Big Bang. The expansion of the universe more than makes up for the formation of stars.

As a side note it is interesting to think of entropy as the driving force that gives time a direction. Time will always proceed in a direction that will result in an increase in entropy. So theoretically, when the entropy of the universe reaches a maximum, time will cease to move forward...

Answer 2

No. The first law just suggests that the energy of the universe remain constant, not that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Matter IS created and destroyed. A nuclear bomb and the sun are two examples of mass-energy conversion. Energy to mass is complicated because when humans do it, we get two complimentary particles that re-annihilate. This probably has more to do with the second law, although no where in the second law does it suggest that order cannot increase, but that the total entropy of a CLOSED system increases. Take for example, life on Earth. The earth is not a closed system, we get tons of energy pumped to us from the sun, our ancestors worshiped it. If we take the earth's pressure and temperature to be roughly constant due to the work of the sun, then, on earth, entropy is not the functional that is maximized, rather gibbs free energy is minimized, which would suggest by your interpretation of "entropy is disorder" that the earth must not be "in it's most disordered state" by definition. Of course this argument is rubbish because there doesn't exist a non-equilibrium theory of thermodynamics. If you looked at the sun AND the earth, a better approximation to a closed system and ask, "Is entropy increasing?" the answer is YES!

Answer 3

Before the big bang, there may not have been such a thing as matter, or density. There was a lot of energy, which is interchangeable with matter by virtue of e=mc^2. Why is that? Well, some NIU/Fermi Lab/Argonne Lab people are looking into the possibility of a "Higgs Boson" which could have given fast, energetic particles mass by preferentially interacting with them and altering their energy states. If a Higgs Boson is found, it means there is likely a Higgs Field in the universe which gave particles the mass we have come to know today. If a black hole is an implosion taking nearby matter along with it, then it is conceivable that a Higgs field is the reverse: causing energy bundles that interact with it to "explode" and take on mass.

Answer 4

I'm not a physicist, but I took a lot of physics during my undergrad for engineering. I have some interesting questions in this area as well, so if you can get a bona fide physicist to explain it, I would be interested to hear their answer. As well as some answers to how life itself does not defy the second laws of physics.

If I recall, the second law, states that energy tends to flow from a state of higher potential (energy) to lower potential (energy). This makes sense, kind of. If you heat a warm glass of water in the microwave oven, it's potential (heat from energy) is high, and after leaving it in a room for a while, that potential will be minimized to match the rooms temperature (low).

If stars are really formed from particles of dust and hydrogen gas, as most astrophysicists would state, then they appear to be moving from a state of lower potential (inert hydrogen gas), to a state of much higher potential through gravitiional forces and fusion, which renders them into heavier elements such as uranium. Thus, the entropy (potential) would appear, to a novice (me), to be increasing because of gravity, and thus defying the second law.

If the universe were ever-expanding, as has been argued through the big bang theory, then entropy would seem to hold true. Particles would continue "scattering" to degraded forms of energy throughout the universe as the evolution from the big bang continued, but then gravity, star formation, and a slew of other phenomenon would appear to throw this out the window. Even plant life seems to defy the second law, since plants gather low forms of energy (heat and radiation from the sun) and turn it into complex materials from raw elements in the ground.

So to answer your question, my poorly guided guess is no, the big bang supports the law of entropy because it is contributing to randomness and degradation of energy throughout the universe. The oddities of gravity and life itself however seem to defy the second law. Attached below is one of the better explanations of the second law I have read in a while.

http://www.rationality.net/entropy.htm

Even Einstein was confounded by gravity though.

Answer 5

This argument derives from a faux effect of the 2nd regulation. If it have been valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes might additionally be impossible, as a results of fact they, too, are complicated systems that variety spontaneously from disordered areas. the 2nd regulation genuinely states that the finished entropy of a closed equipment (one that no capability or remember leaves or enters) can not cut back. Entropy is a actual thought many times casually defined as disease, despite if it differs heavily from the conversational use of the notice. greater considerable, despite if, the 2nd regulation facilitates areas of a equipment to cut back in entropy as long as different areas experience an offsetting develop. consequently, our planet as an entire can strengthen greater complicated as a results of fact the solar pours heat and lightweight onto it, and the greater beneficial entropy linked with the solar's nuclear fusion greater beneficial than rebalances the scales. ordinary organisms can gasoline their upward thrust in direction of complexity by utilising ingesting different varieties of existence and nonliving components.

Answer 6

Simply put, the Big Bang theory cops out of such questions by stating that all of our physical laws either don't apply or break down during this alleged event.

Answer 7

I suggest you do a yahoo search, you are going into the real of Metaphysics now..