Does the second law of thermodynamics prove the existence of a source of useful energy outside the universe?

Question

According to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy of a system can decrease only if useful energy is transferred into the system from outside the system. In a system which is somehow created without an investment of external useful energy, disorder will be at a maximum.

Now let's look at the entire physical universe. The high degree of orderliness in the universe can be made possible only through the transfer of useful energy into the physical universe from outside the physical universe.

Those who are not willing to accept the existence of God or of an "Intelligent Designer" outside the physical universe, are in effect saying that there is no source of such useful energy outside the physical universe. According to them, all energy sources for the orderliness in the universe are inside the universe. This would be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, and, therefore, contrary to the laws of physics.

(Looking for answers from physicists who really understand the subject)

This is not an attempt to prove the existence of God. Those who know that God exists, don't need a proof. And, those who don't know it, are not likely to suddenly change their mind. However, one thing must be understood by all - nonexistence of an external source of energy which adds orderliness into the physical universe is contrary to the laws of physics.

Answer 1

No, it doesn't prove that. We have no idea what happened in the first tiny fraction of a second of the universe's existence (or before that or if there even was a before that), but after that, the second law of thermo seems to hold and the entropy of the universe has been increasing ever since.

Answer 2

Hi,

The Universe is defined as the summation of all particles and energy that exist and the space-time in which all events occur.

Since we have adopted that definition, the question doesn't really make sense since there is no way to introduce energy from outside of the system because it would then become part of the system.

I realize that this argument is tautological, but the point is that if you want to try to define energy transfer from an outside source as a means to reduce entropy of a system, you'd better have that system (not to mention the total entropy within that system) well defined.

Interesting idea though. I look forward to hearing what everyone else thinks.

Matt

Answer 3

> "The high degree of orderliness in the universe can be made possible only through the transfer of useful energy into the physical universe from outside the physical universe."

This may or may not be true. Thermodynamics considers the evolution through time of the entropy of systems. As such, we can say that the the total entropy of the universe ought to decrease through time (that's assuming the the universe as a whole can be considered a "system" in the thermodynamics sense; which is not at all clear). However, If the origin of universe also marked the beginning of time itself, then the universe can "start" with an arbitrarily large amount of useful energy without any contradiction to thermodynamics; because there is NO PERIOD OF TIME during which the universe's useful energy is increasing nor its entropy decreasing. Get it?

Now, you can argue that this initial useful energy must have "come from somewhere," but that's a philosophical argument, not a thermodynamics argument.

In addition, there are (unproven) physical theories which DO describe where the universe's initial useful energy may have come from (see the various "inflation" models for example).

> "Those who are not willing to accept the existence of God or of an "Intelligent Designer" outside the physical universe, are in effect saying that there is no source of such useful energy outside the physical universe."

That statement contains a hidden premise; namely that God (or another "Intelligent Designer") is the only conceivable source of useful energy outside the physical universe; in other words, that any "extra-universal" energy source _necessarily_implies_ intelligence. This strikes me as a huge leap in logic, because in all my experiences with energy and my experiences with intelligence, I have yet to detect any necessary causal relationship between the two. It seems to me that your line of reasoning is going like this:

1. The existence of "initial energy" seems mysterious to me;
2. That which is mysterious to me can only be explained by the existence of supernatural intelligence;
3. Thereforce, a supernatural intelligence must exist.

Personally, I would stop at Step 2 above. When something's mysterious to me, I assume only that it implies my personal ignorance and nothing else. I feel it would be presumptuous of me to pretend otherwise.

A milder variation of the above syllogism might go like this:

1. The existence of "initial energy" seems to violate known laws of physics;
2. That which violates known laws of physics can only be explained by the existence of supernatural intelligence;
3. Thereforce, a supernatural intelligence must exist.

Again, Step 2 is valid only if you make a couple of critical hidden assumptions: (a) that the "known laws of physics" comprise a complete and perfect description of the universe (i.e., that scentists are omniscient); and (b) that contradictions of physical law are (for what reason?) associated with "intelligence".

To sum things up: You make an interesting philosophical argument (although it seems flawed to me); but your claim that your argument is based on physics is, I think, simply false.

Answer 4

Well, I am not sure that you can define the universe as a closed system. Nobody knows if the universe is finite (a closed system) or infinite, or infinitely parallel. Also, as we have seen with quantum mechanics and the nature of sub-atomic particles, there are times when classical physics just doesn't apply.
I see what you are saying, and you are making a valid point, however, I feel that our current lack of understanding prohibits us from making some kind of a hard and fast conclusion of that nature.
So anyway, you need to define your system (presumably a finite closed system) and that is very, very hard to do at this point. I am of the opinion that humans are not going to discover the secrets of the universe any time soon. We're just not all as smart as we like to think we are.

Answer 5

Entropy is unavailable energy within a system or the degradation of matter to an ultimate state of inert uniformity. IOW, whether the universe is closed or not, left to its own devices, all matter and energy would eventually return to the Quantum where it will be recycled. It's not a 'big crunch', more like a 'big absorption'.

Answer 6

"In a system which is somehow created without an investment of external useful energy, disorder will be at a maximum."

i think your argument hangs on the the second sentence you've written.

but that seems to just be an assumption that you've made...

why does it have to be the case? does anyone claim to know a lot about the beginnings of the universe?!

Answer 7

Unfortunately the answer is No.
The second law of thermodynamics can only be applied reliably in a Newtonian environment, where time, space, and matter can be assumed as independent entities.

The question of what, if anything, is outside the boundary of our universe is more a matter for the Law of Philosophy rather than the Laws of Thermodynamics.