The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
Some say life is anti-entropy. If so, it may qualify as your "self-winding" idea.
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
Alas, everything you do to stay alive increases the universe's entropy. Remember, always, it's system+surroundings. The food you eat, for example.
Some of it is used to make orderly structures to maintain your vessel, but this is driven by other reactions to supply the energy necessary to create the material. You breath out CO2 as the final product of extracting energy from (and increasing the entropy of) the majority of what you ingest.
The constant increase in entropy as a consequence of all events is fundamentally related to giving a direction of time.
True. But do not assume all have the same capability to work it out for themselves. In leiu of that and with a desire to play the intellectual game, the path of least resistance is to accept what seems right, or worse, what appeals emotionally. Many minds of mush out there.
My basis in entropy is primarily from courses in Chemical Thermodynamics. Part of calculations, in fact.
A tidbit for you: do you know those "ice packs" you squish and they get cold? They are devices whereby the thermodynamics to happen spontaneously (Gibbs Free Energy < 0) is dominated by entropy instead of enthalpy (i.e., the common heat emitted by most chemical reactions). Not uncommon if one dissolves ammonium salts.
I think entropy might be like a programmer.
Starts on one area, makes it nice and chaotic.
moves on to the next area.
Some millions years later swings by, and notices this lump of a planet and yell "who the hell did this! This is terrible chaos design.
"Oh, nope, my bad, did this one in my younger days. I know how to make this better now."
In one respect, it would give me an entire additional line of thought to apply to the musing.
In another respect, it answers the question: if spontaneous events can occur in the void between things, creating existence where there was none - then the universe would seem to be, indeed, self winding as new existences come and go.
Did your reading also consider that if something could appear in the middle of nothing, and then disappear, then why not similar disappearance of somethings in the non-void (is there anyplace that is not just a spec in its own local void?).
Virtual particles etc are in the realm of quantum physics, which no one
as yet seems to fully understand! I recommend the book "What is real" by
Adam Becker as some sort of a guide to that world. I do not pretend
to understand such things but I think someday, just as relativity altered
our view of Newtonian physics, our view of what the universe is all about
will change as well.
It seems to me that it is, in rather simple terms, a disagreement as to the basis set to be correctly used to describe the universe. (there is an author's reply down the page).
What is real - not obviously a part of what I used when starting this. Whatever is real, it does tend towards disorder as the result of any action that can be considered spontaneous. Spontaneous meaning, in this context, what will happen to something's state if it were to change to a "more relaxed and natural state" - for example - you'd be more stable if you fell down flat than if you were to remain standing. I'm thus considering what happens when everything everywhere has fallen. Is that state, itself, a contradiction?
"When everything everywhere has fallen" may be a contradiction. Fallen
implies it fell somewhere, to some gravitational attractor, like a star.
When a star loses energy, gravity may completely take over, resulting
in a massive explosion, which may eject matter and start anew,
or a black hole.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, speculate as we may about
the true nature of this universe (or multiverses or whatever) we
do not (and may never) know what is real.
The problem with your argument is that on a large scale thermodynamics moves energy from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration. Voids are low concentrations of energy whereas stars have high concentrations of energy around them. This means that the energy produced by stars, and thus galaxies and galaxy clusters will eventually move into the Voids. The gravitational energy will of course continue to pull stars into an ever tighter matter as the weak and strong nuclear forces decay, so the probability of the universe ever being completely homogenous at the quantum level is zero.
The problem with your argument is that on a large scale thermodynamics moves energy from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration.
Thermodynamics tends to move things from higher energy states to lower energy states. Concentration (of stuff), although a factor, is not the only consideration - and may not even be one.
The Gibbs Free Energy, which is basically the traffic controller for thermodynamic (which way does something go) includes both thermal and entropy components. They can pull together or in opposing directions for a given event. Expand your view to the surroundings and the entropy has increased and that is a dispersive phenomenon.
Gravity is magic! but, I'd conjecture that energy is emitted when two object coalesce do to gravitational forces. Isn't there something to that effect when an object crosses the event horizon of a black hole? Also, don't black holes emit Hawkings radiation (per an earlier post) and they eventually wither away into total dispersion as energy?