The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Enough

Already!
One of the most tediously common creationist claims is the Second Law of
Thermodynamics argument. It is wrong, and was wrong from the beginning; but
despite the fact that it has been refuted countless times, it continues to circulate
in anti-evolutionist organiations, inevitably accompanied by the claim that it
presents an insurmountable problem for the theory of evolution. !othing could be
further from the truth, as this essay will demonstrate.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental principle of physics. It deals
with entropy, a term that has a precise mathematical de"nition. #or this essay, it
is su$cient to say that entropy corresponds to the amount of energy in a system
available to do wor%. The more energy available for wor%, the less entropy there
is, and vice versa. The Second Law of Thermodynamics &or 'LOT for short( says
that the net entropy of a closed system must always increase.
To better understand the topic, a further e)planation is worthwhile. The First Law
of Thermodynamics, another well-established physical principle, says that the
total amount of energy in the universe is constant; energy can never be created
or destroyed. *owever, it can ta%e many forms + %inetic, potential,
electromagnetic, thermal, mechanical, and others. ,hen you throw a ball, you are
converting chemical energy stored in your muscles, in the form of the cellular fuel
-T., into mechanical energy to move your arm, which is in turn transferred into
%inetic energy in the ball. The leaves of green plants collect electromagnetic
energy + light + and convert it into chemical energy in the form of sugar. /irtually
every interaction involves an energy conversion of some %ind.
The 'LOT states that no energy conversion is ever 0112 e$cient. ,henever
energy is converted from one form to another, some of it is lost, in the form of
waste heat. ,hen electric current travels through wires, some of the energy is
dissipated as heat by the resistance of the wire; when you move your body, some
energy is dissipated as heat by friction in your 3oints, and so on.
4nergy cannot be destroyed, but this waste heat is e5ectively lost. It spreads out
into its surroundings, becoming diluted among all the available molecules until no
temperature di5erential e)ists and it is stretched too thin to ever be recovered.
4ntropy has 3ust increased. This is the heart of the 'LOT6 in every reaction, usable-
energy decreases and entropy increases, even if only by a small amount. The
most common phrasing of the 'LOT is that in a closed system, net entropy always
increases. - system is any collection of interactions; a closed system is one that
e)changes neither matter nor energy with its surroundings.
47uivalently, entropy can be described in terms of disorder. In a system
containing atoms at di5erent temperatures, the low-entropy state would consist of
those atoms segregated by temperature, for e)ample, one reservoir of hot atoms
and one reservoir of cold atoms. This temperature di5erential is what ma%es it
possible for the system to do wor%. The high-entropy state would consist of atoms
of all di5erent temperatures randomly mi)ed together, so that the temperature of
any part of the system is on average the same as the temperature of the whole
system. The high-entropy state is more disordered than the low-entropy state, in
the sense that rearrangements of the system are less li%ely to change it
importantly. ,hen atoms are separated into hot and cold pools, any random
rearrangement will probably mi) the two pools together, increasing entropy; but
when the atoms are mi)ed together in a homogeneous gas, any random
rearrangement is far more li%ely to leave them as a homogeneous gas, producing
no change in entropy. &This can be analogied by pouring in% into a glass of water.
If one randomly stirs the glass immediately after pouring in the in%, the result will
be to di5use the in% throughout the water8s volume, but if one stirs the glass after
the in% and water are well mi)ed, it is e)traordinarily unli%ely that the in% and
water will unmi) themselves and separate out; rather, they will remain mi)ed.(
It is important to note that an increase in entropy is not necessarily irreversible. If
the system is left to itself, random chance ma%es it overwhelmingly li%ely that
entropy will increase to the ma)imum and then stay the same, 3ust as it is
overwhelmingly li%ely that the in% will di5use throughout the water and never
spontaneously re-separate. *owever, if the system is not 9left to itself: + if wor% is
done on it + the entropy of that particular system can decrease, although only at
the cost of increasing the entropy of the system that did the wor% + and thus the
total amount of entropy in the universe + by an even greater amount. ;any %inds
of human-built technology are designed to change a high-entropy state into a low-
entropy state; one common e)ample is a refrigerator.
,e now turn to the creationist argument. Typically, it goes something li%e this6
4volution predicts that organisms &biological systems( evolve from less comple)
to more comple) &more highly ordered( states. The 'LOT predicts that all systems,
including biological ones, inevitably degrade and brea% down into less ordered
states. Therefore, evolution contradicts the 'LOT and must be wrong.
,ith the above e)planation in mind, several things can be said about this. #irst, it
is a common mista%e to e7uate entropy with everyday notions of chaos or
disorder, but it is a mista%e nevertheless. Strictly spea%ing, entropy is e7uivalent
to disorder only on the atomic level, in the technical sense discussed above. If the
terms 9order: and 9disorder: are instead used in the way most people would
understand them + the way creationists use them + then entropy can increase
without there being any corresponding increase in disorder, and some processes
that increase entropy actually increase order. #or an e)ample of the "rst
condition, if you set up a heater in your bedroom and leave it running for several
hours, you will have signi"cantly increased the room8s entropy, regardless of
whether the arrangement of items in the room has changed. The temperature of
your bedroom, rather than whether your clothes are folded in the bureau or
strewn about the <oor, is the overwhelmingly important factor when determining
the entropy of the room &see this Tal%.Origins .ost of the ;onth for an
e)planation(; and this applies to every other macroscopic system as well.
-s for the second condition, there are many physical processes that
spontaneously increase order without in any way violating the 'LOT. #or e)ample,
the process of crystalliation produces highly ordered, comple) structures such as
geodes and snow<a%es. =andom weather interactions give rise to highly ordered
systems such as tornadoes and hurricanes. 4vaporation can separate a mi)ture of
water and salt; wave action on a beach can sort pebbles by sie. =andom
processes of freeing and thawing can produce eerily regular geometric patterns
of stones &Self-Organiation of Sorted .atterned >round; see also Stone circles
e)plained(. -nd "nally, highly organied stars can form through the gravitational
collapse of random clouds of hydrogen gas. !one of these processes violate the
'LOT in any way.
,hen the true de"nition of entropy is used, rather than the creationists8 straw
man, it is obvious that evolution in no way violates the 'LOT, regardless of
whether it produces an increase in some vaguely-de"ned notion of order. #or
thermodynamics to be satis"ed, the only re7uirement is that entropy increase,
and it does. ,hat energy is dissipated to cause this entropy increase? The answer
is fairly obvious6 the energy of the Sun. - small fraction of the energy the Sun
emits reaches the 4arth, where it is absorbed by living things and used for
photosynthesis. The rest of the Sun8s energy is radiated into space and dissipated,
causing a huge increase in entropy.
In other words, the 4arth is an open system + it is not isolated, but rather is
constantly receiving energy from the Sun. Therefore, there is no 'LOT constraint
on what its net entropy gain or loss must be. &Living organisms, for that matter,
are also open systems, since they continually ta%e in energy.( Though the 'LOT, in
varying formulations, does apply to all systems, it does not say that the net
entropy of an open system must increase. On the contrary, the net entropy of an
open system can either increase or decrease. This is because an open system can
import energy, as the 4arth does, and e)port waste heat, so that the universe8s
total entropy does increase 9somewhere else:. Such is the case if one steps bac%
and considers the larger system of the 4arth and the Sun. -ny small decreases in
the entropy of the 4arth are more than compensated for by the huge increases in
entropy produced by the Sun each moment.
If evolution violates the 'LOT, there must be some speci"c step in the process of
evolution that violates the 'LOT. ,hich step is this, according to creationists? It is
not mutation; the process of replicating the genome uses up energy 3ust li%e any
other chemical reaction. It is not natural selection; for every one organism that
emerges victorious and prospers, many more must die, dissipating their stored
biochemical energy. It is not reproduction; all living things are dependent on the
usable energy of the Sun, whether used directly for photosynthesis or passed
along the food chain. There is no step in evolution that violates the 'LOT, which is
why creationists cannot point to one. -nd if no single step in the process violates
this law, then the process as a whole does not, either.
,hen confronted with this argument, creationists will usually spea% vaguely about
9the law of conservation of information: or 9energy conversion mechanisms:, or
say that only intelligence can 9overcome: the 'LOT to produce an increase in
order. These arguments are pure fabrication. !o such concepts e)ist in the
scienti"c formulation of the 'LOT or in the "eld of thermodynamics in general. The
e7uations of the 'LOT are called path independent, meaning that it is irrelevant
for their purposes how an energy conversion is brought about. Intelligence has no
privileged position in the e7uations; a human producing an ordered system no
more 9overcomes: the 'LOT than a human who throws a ball up into the air
overcomes the law of gravity. !or do the e7uations of thermodynamics mention
9information:, a term which creationists deliberately leave ill-de"ned and vague
so that they can employ it in a manner convenient to them. @efore such
arguments can be entertained, creationists must "rst de"ne e)actly what
9information: means in this conte)t and provide a precise way to measure it.
There is one "nal point to consider6 If the creationists8 arguments were correct
and the 'LOT did indeed forbid evolution, then there should be a massive con<ict
between biologists and physicists. There is none. 4ven someone who has no
understanding of entropy or thermodynamics can appreciate this point. If the
clash were as obvious as it is made out to be, then every physicist in the world
should be an anti-evolutionist, aware that the theory is a gross violation of one of
their most basic laws. @ut since the community with the most comprehensive
understanding of thermodynamics seems to see no con<ict between it and
evolution, the obvious conclusion is that the creationists have invented a problem
where none e)ists.
=ead more6 http6AAwww.patheos.comAblogsAdaylightatheismAessaysAthe-second-
law-of-thermodynamics-enough-alreadyABi)CCiCe,DL-
O%, I have warned you. @race yourself. I am going to argue against what many
believe to be the most fundamental law of physics. - sacrosanct law. - law that
you e)perience everyday and that is so obviously true that no one should meddle
with it. Eou all %now this law. ItFs the law referred to as Fthe secondF. The second
law of thermodynamics.
Ok, don't blow it hammock guy. You can argue against every concept in physics,
but don't touch the second law of thermodynamics! You don't want to place
yourself in this group, do you?
*as anyone ever dared to attac% the second law of thermodynamics? I am not
aware of even a single attempt. 4ddingtonFs famous remar% on the second law of
thermodynamics says it all. This law occupies a special position in physics and
rules supreme. @eware the person who dares to meddle with it6
It was =udolf Glausius, the inventor of the term FentropyF, who already told us that
the entropy of the universeH can go only one direction6 it can only increase. -nd
once Ludwig @oltmann and Glaude Shannon were done, we became familiar with
the true meaning of the term entropy, and it all started to ma%e sense. 4ntropy
simply is the information content of a physical system, the number of digits
needed to fully describe the system down to its smallest details. So the second
law tells us that the number of digits needed to describe the universe %eeps
increasing. Seems fair enough, right? The whole universe e)pands, so probably its
information content increases as well.
One-way Universe
,ait a second. Ta%e !ewtonFs laws, or any other fundamental law of physics. -ll
these laws are reversible. They describe a two-way universe. Loo% at two
elastically colliding billiard balls. !ow consider the same collision reversed in time.
This reverse collision is as valid as the collision going forward in time. Our laws of
physics describe a two-way universe. - universe without an Farrow of timeF. This
holds for all fundamental dynamical laws, including the las that describe the
dynamics of atomic and subatomic particles.
Eet, our human e)perience that focuses on scales much larger than microscopic
scales is vastly di5erent. ,e seem to live in a one-way universe. >lass can bra%e,
but it canFt unbrea%. Eou can turn a piece of wood into ashes, but no one has
managed to reverse that process. ,e grow older, never younger. ,e all can
remember the past but not the future.
,hat is the origin of this arrow of time? ,hy does time present itself as a one-way
road?
#eynman contemplated these issues, and considered them of enough relevance to
bring to the attention of undergraduate students at Galtech. In his F#eynman
Lectures on .hysicsF he points towards the big bang as the cause of the one-way-
ness6
;any years later another Galtech physicist and science communicator, Sean
Garroll, continues to study the pule of entropy increase brea%ing the two-way
nature of our universe6
So the current consensus is that entropy increases simply because there are many
more con"gurations that re7uire a large number of digits to describe them, then
that there are con"gurations described by fewer digits. ,e all now that with four
digits you can describe a total of 01,111 con"gurations, with two digits only 011.
So statistically, a physical system will be li%ely to end up in con"gurations
described by more digits. @ut as Sean Garroll stresses, that still leaves the
7uestion why the universe started in such a particular low entropy con"guration
described by very few digits.
Since his 0IJI boo% Fhe !mperor's "ew #indF, =oger .enrose has been drawing
the attention of the wider public to the remar%able low entropy of the big bang. In
his magnum opus Fhe $oad to $ealityF he revisits the issue, and "nally in his
latest boo% F%ycles of imeF he presents a whole new cosmology aimed at
e)plaining the low entropy beginning of our universe.
In my last blog post I discussed F%ycles of imeF and made the statement that the
big bang must have had a low entropy, but that very fact should not surprise us.
The best way to e)plain this is by studying a simple toy model.
Fibonacci Universe
Imagine a universe much
simpler than ours. -
universe in which time
progresses in discrete
steps. -t each tic% this
universe 3umps into a new
spatial con"guration. The
physicists living in this
universe have managed
to describe these
con"gurations, down to
their most minute details,
in terms of simple
numbers. They discover
that at a certain step their
universe is in a
con"guration that can be
described by the number
K,'IJ,1CK,L01. One tic%
later the universe is in
con"guration
M,ILK,CML,I''. Then in
00,'L',K11,KC', and ne)t
in 0J,'1M,NMM,CLK.
Scientists study these
numbers and try to "nd a
pattern. O&f we 'nd the
mathematical law that
generates these numbers,
we will have a theory of
everythingO they e)claim.
O(e will know the mind of
)od!O
They readily observe that all numbers are even, and coin this Fthe "rst lawF. They
also recon that the numbers %eep growing, this provides them with their Fsecond
lawF. !e)t they discover how to 7uantify this growth6 each ne)t number appears
to be about 0.M0J1CK times the previous number.
@ased on e)periments in their particle accelerators the scientists start
contemplating how the Second Law of con"guration number growth would apply
to an anti-universe obtained by replacing all particles by anti-particles. It is not
before long that theorists come up with a growth rule for anti-universes6 each ne)t
con"guration number in an anti-universe will be -0.M0J1CK times the previous
number. The negative sign causes negative con"guration numbers to appear, but
the second law will still hold as the con"guration numbers would not 3ust oscillate
but also grow in sie. There is a lot of discussion about the meaning of the minus
sign in the growth number. *owever, this discussion subsides when the scientists
start realiing that growth laws can only be an appro)imation to a deeper truth.
Simple reason being that a repetitive multiplication by a non-integer number canFt
produce pure integers. ;any scientists frantically try to "nd out how e)actly each
integer determines the ne)t. !o one succeeds.
Then a young scientist starts toying with the idea that a law that determines the
ne)t con"guration based solely on the previous one might not e)ist. Gould it be
that two or more subse7uent con"gurations are needed to determine the ne)t?
*e immediately stumbles upon an amaingly simple pattern in which each
number is nothing more the sum of the previous two numbers.
This hits the scienti"c community li%e a bomb shell.The scientist now realie they
were pursuing the wrong approach by assuming the state of the universe re7uires
only one con"guration number. So they start considering pairs of subse7uent
con"guration numbers as describing the universe6
It is as if the number of dimensions of the universe they live in have doubled
overnightP #or reasons no one remembers, the scientist start referring to the
space of con"gurations described by pairs of numbers as the phase space. This to
distinguish it from the con"guration space that carries only a single number.They
ne)t discover that the anti-universe to their own universe is obtained simply by
changing the sign of one of the numbers in the phase-space pair. So

would describe the anti-universe of
and vice versa. @y applying the Fadd-the-last-twoF rule to the numbers appearing
in subse7uent pairs, they can reproduce the observed evolution in terms of the
con"guration pairs6
and they can do the same for the anti-universe6
- new riddle has appeared. ,hy do a universe and its anti-partner evolve
di5erently? This canFt be right as universes and their anti-universes are related by
a simple sign change in the con"guration pairs.
It doesnFt ta%e long before a bright mind realies a universe and its anti universe
both evolve according to the Fadd-the-last-twoF rule, but they do so in opposite
directions in time.
This means that by %nowing a con"guration pair, it is not only possible to compute
forward in time, but also to trace bac% the history of their universe. -nd the
amaing thing is6 this can be done by using the very same Fadd-the-last-twoF rule,
provided one changes the con"gurational pair into the corresponding anti-pair and
reverses the order of the two numbers in the pair &an operation referred to as time
reversal(6
!ow all pieces of the pule have fallen in place. @y transforming universes in
their anti universes and bac% again, the scientists can compute the phase-space
state of the universe forward and bac%ward in time. They can now answer the
mother of all 7uestions Ohow did it all start?O. So they begin computing bac% in
time. Starting from the pair
they reach lower and lower numbers6
!o small tas% given the rudimentary computational resources in their rather
limited universe. @ut they %eep calculating and reach still lower numbers6
The computations continue further. -nd further. The numbers reduce in sie to C-
digit and then '-digit numbers. Then something remar%able happens, the
numbers start growing in sie6
Qid they ma%e an error? They chec% their calculations, and chec% them again.
4verything seems right. ,hat is happening here? *ave they stumbled upon an
e)ception to the second law? If the numbers grow in sie when going bac%wards
in time, they shrin% going forward in time. @ut the second law forbids this. -nd
this law rules supreme. Or does it?
ig ounce
.ic% a cellular automata rule, ta%e the *otel @oltmann dynamics, use LangtonFs
ant, or construct a much more complicated dynamics based on Loop Ruantum
>ravity. It doesnFt matter which model of the universe you create. -s long as you
create a model that is reversible and that grows without bounds, the very same
behavior is observed6 a bounce. The bit sie of your reversible model universe will
go through a contracting phase followed by an e)pansion phase.
The conclusion seems inevitable6 if the second law of thermodynamics doesnFt
hold true for any of these simple model systems, it is probably neither true for our
own universe. One could argue that all of this 3ust means the second law of
thermodynamics holds true only at one side of the bounce. That would be
compatible with the observed entropy increase following the big bounce that we
refer to as the big bang.
This is a too restrictive view. It is much more insightful to start from a timeless
description and to view an unbound reversible dynamics as a chain of states that
never retraces its steps and that therefore has no beginning and no end. In terms
of the length of the description of the states &the entropies of the states(, such a
chain can not be monotonic. The entropy of the states has to feature a bounce.
This is inevitable, simply because the length of the descriptions canFt drop below
ero. ,ith a bounce, the direction of entropy increase at either side of the bounce
is pointed away from the bounce. -nd as low entropy states can not carry the
memory of high entropy states, a temporal direction with an un%nown future
results.HH
,here does this leave us with the Second Law? Glearly when e)pressed a-la
Glausius *he entropy of the universe can only increase* does not hold true.
*owever, we can rede"ne the Second Law such that it does cover the observed
bounce behavior6
*he entropy of the universe is a conve+ function of time.*
,ith S&S( denoting the entropy of the universe in state S, Glausius formulaition of
the second law reads6
if @ comes after -
The above "ndings suggest a replacement of the form6
for any states - and @
Is this the correct formulation of the second law? I donFt %now. @ut I do %now that
when considering model systems, this conve)ity formulation ma%es more sense
than the standard formulation. -lso this new formulation, in contrast to GlausiusF
formulation, ma%es no use of an ordering of events, and "ts naturally with
reversible laws of physics.
-n important corollary of a conve) function or bounce-description of the second
law is that one should not wonder about the smallness of the entropy of our
universe about 0C.N billion years ago. If the universe does not retrace its steps, it
has to have a minimum entropy at some point. That point we refer to as the big
bang, but that should be more appropriately be referred to as the big bounce.
-ssuming that the big bang represents a temporal singularity that mar%s the start
of time is an unnecessary assumption. -n assumption that gets you in all %ind of
trouble and forces the 7uestion why the starting point was so special and had
such a low entropy.
- big bounce seems to me a cleaner description that more easily survives
OccamFs raor than a big bang singularity. LetFs remind ourselves of the fact that
there is no single piece of evidence that would ma%e us believe that our universe
is in any way bounded, either in spatial e)tend or in time. #or all we %now, the
universe will %eep e)panding inde"nitely in all directions. Similarly, the universe
can e)tend in both time directions without limit. There is no reason to believe that
our universe wonFt reach everywhere and everywhen.
Only when we %now the ultimate theory, will we %now for sure the character of the
state referred to as the big bang. In the meantime, you have to ma%e a choice in
what answer you are going to give to the 7uestion Owhat was there before the big
bang?O. ,ill your answer be the traditional
-( OThis is a nonsense 7uestion, you might as well have as%ed what is south of the
South .olePO.
Or will it rather be a bounce-inspired
@( O-n universe that is a mirror universe to our own, consisting of anti-particles
moving bac% in time and mirrored in space.O