I think the moon was estimated at about 50,000 years not sure about the Earth, 5 billion years maybe. Eventually they will succumb to gravity, I don't think entropy will play a role in that. The moon will not orbit the Earth indefinitely either will the Earth orbit the sun. But yes the universe is slowly decaying because of entropy (very slowly). If there was to be a big crunch I think that would happen long before entropy effects were felt. I think entropy happens so slow on a universal level and the universe is so big it will be tens or hundreds of billions of years before it would pose any major effect. Or what about the Moon orbiting the Earth, or an electron orbiting a proton? Don't these represent systems in states of equilibrium such that the one body will continue to orbit the other indefinitely? For instance, the idea that the universe will eventually collapse upon itself in a 'Big Crunch', and then a 'Big Band', and yet another 'Big Crunch' after that, and so on, seems to me like a system that will never succumb to entropy. Is the universe doomed to settle into a field of floating debri without much life to it at all, or is there hope that the universe could evolve into something greater from which it will never degrade, or at the very least continue forever in a state of equilibrium (with moderate fluctuations now and again). Yes' date=' yes, all very good, but what do the laws of entropy say about the fate of the universe (now that I know to distinguish between thermodynamic and structural entropy - thanks Les - I refer only to the structural type). I'm not a physicist, so I'm not trying to strike a blow at the theory of entropy. Yes, yes, all very good, but what do the laws of entropy say about the fate of the universe (now that I know to distinguish between thermodynamic and structural entropy - thanks Les - I refer only to the structural type). My point was that although there is no thermodynamic term for antientropy, there are instances of extraordinary structurally antientropic behaviors which we have termed 'life' and 'consciousness.' Of course, assuming consciousness emerged from life processes, that sort of makes sense. all of it structurally antientropic behavior. Look at us, building, learning, creating, trying to survive. If anything comes close to structural antientropic behavior, evolution has to be a top candidate.īut then there is consciousness. As impressive as the formation of the complex dynamics of a star is from collapsed interstellar gas, for instance, it doesn't hold a candle to billions of years of layer after layer organizing done through evolution. In our universe, there are no known examples of extended ordering (structural antientropy) which surpass that found in life and consciousness.

In terms of gib65's question, he seemed to be thinking about the more general, or 'structural,' use of the term. In my own mind I think about two variations as thermodynamic entropy and structural entropy, respectively. Part of the problem is that the term 'entropy' has been expanded from thermodynamics to a general term for the ever-growing disorder in the universe. I specifically pointed to behavior and not to the thermal processes involved in achieving that behavior.

Hmmmmm, did you read my entire post? Anticipating someone thinking I don't understand entropy, I tried to make it clear I wasn't suggesting they didn't obey the second law everything does. They obey the 2nd law, and aren't very efficient either.

Opposite of entropy