Wonders of the Universe, a new BBC series by Professor Brian Cox, explores the Universe and everything about it. The first episode, entitled Destiny, talks about time, death, and the end of the Universe. Kind of odd for a beginning, but fascinating none the less. I would highly recommend watching it, even if you’re not a fan of physics, as Professor Brian Cox does an amazing job of explaining things clearly and concisely, whilst simultaneously making staring into the distance cool. I know I for one learnt a lot from the episode!
Perhaps the most important concept he explored was the Arrow of Time. The basic premise of this is that as each moment passes, things change, and they can’t be undone. This results in a future that will always be different from the past, thereby driving the evolution of the Universe. One of the major factors causing this is due to the second law of thermodynamics: entropy. Entropy is a natural state whereby, if left untouched, things go from an ordered state to a disordered state, which can also be written as going from a low entropy to a high entropy. Entropy always increases over time, and is the reason why time only runs forwards.
Another fascinating concept is that when you look up at the stars, you are looking back in time. Light takes time to reach Earth, so whatever light you see from the stars has already happened a long time ago. An amazing example of this is GRB 090423, a small red dot (seen in the centre of the image on the right) first observed on April 23rd 2009. This was discovered to be the oldest known object in the Universe, as the light emitted by it took approximately 13 billion years to reach us. 13 BILLION years. That’s a huge number! Considering the Universe is approximately only 13.7 billion years old, this massive star lived, exploded, and burnt out to form a black hole roughly 630 million years after the Big Bang. That is just mind bendingly insane. It shows that even at the start of the Universe, stars were dying. Our sun will probably explode in 6 billion years or so, leaving a white dwarf, which will cool and transform into a black dwarf, which will become a black hole, before the Universe as we know it ends. But don’t worry, this won’t happen for approximately another 10 thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years. So don’t hold your breath.
Enjoy life, however brief on the cosmic scale it is. Onwards!
A most intertesting look at life, the universe and everything. Seemed to raise a few interesting questions too. Questions that I have now visited twice. Once after reading extensively and now after whatching Wonders of the universe part 1.
If entrapy always increases then how does life in all of its glorious forms come into existance from tiny cells that we humans cannont even see.? How does growth happen when, according to increasing entrapy, it should not? How have atoms themselves come into existance for that matter? How is it that biological life can reair itself and grow? How is it that stars are born?
From what I have learned from the world of science and quantum physics, it seems that matter, which is a from of energy, cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed. I think that mathematics tells us this also. Newton certainly did and I think Einstein hinted at this too. If our understanding is true and not just an assumption then how is it that the ultimate fate of all of existance is to fall into cold non-existance? Is it possible that the assumption stated here is in fact not true after all? That matter and energy can in fact be destroyed? How then, is matter and energy created?
It seems that the fate of stars is to ultimately cool into solid matter – which cannot be “seen”, – form black holes and then evaporate. What happens to the gravity, a form of energy? What happens to the matter, a form of energy, that is used or transformed through out the process of star, planet and life creation through to black hole evaportation? Again, can energy be destroyed, and by implication, created?
What stops the clumps of cold dark matter collecting together under the influence of their gravity to form new, bigger, clumps of matter and perhaps stars? Is this not how everything we know was created in the first place, only by using atoms, a much smaller form of energy?
Just like to share these with you all and encorage further thinking and exploration. Have fun.
I agree with Geoff Bell. In my view this episode has only covered part of the life and universe after existence to the point of dying out. However, there is more to it. The time, I think, is not a straight arrow. It’s rather a round, circular arrow which will go on forever. Prof. Brian Cox has only covered the half length of the circle, from existence to death.
As we know the universe is expanding. This comply with what is said in the episode that stars get hotter (hence, expanding) and collapse. Then the universe cools down. So, would it be possible that when universe contracts as a result of cooling down, the gas particles collide creating yet another big bang? Would NEW universe reborn? Would this new universe be able to create life? Or does life have to wait for a very very long time to form.
I’m excited to find out what will happen in the next episode.
In response to entropy and living organisms, I too thought of this when watching this episode, but, if you think about it, it does agree with the theory. Take the wine glass example. The wine glass has a simple and defined structure, when it is broken, or rather increases in entropy, it’s structure is now much more complex, and can be arranged in several different ways. Similarly look at hydrogen, simplest of all elements. As the Universe cooled and underwent nucleosynthesis, more complex elements arose. Then these elements began to ‘clump’ together, forming compounds. Compounds became more complex and began to form systems. Although it is arguable that the system these compounds form are of an organised structure and have a seemingly ‘low entropy’ (i.e. you can’t switch a heart for a pair of lungs!) the constituent pieces of these systems, the molecules and compounds have increased in entropy, not only do they move around in complex ways but they can also be interchangeable, since two molecules which are exactly the same can both perform the same function in a system. Again, growth really is just an increase in number, hence an increase in entropy as both ‘cells’ (which are same type) can be interchanged and result in a different combination without changing the structure of the system.
As for energy conservation, I still believe holds true, although I have no idea how the Universe came to existence just as much as Brian Cox knows. Of course with the Big Bang, the theory states energy has always been there, but this notion is one which doesn’t tend to put someone at ease; it’s as comforting as being told nothing when you ask a question!! Again we don’t know for sure the future of the Universe, will it expand forever and continue cooling? Or perhaps contract back to origins? Or will it undergo another Big Bang?
Very good revision for my exams! 
There are so many theories that explore this; critical mass density of the Universe, bubble Universes that blip in and out of existence…
Nevertheless, all that can be said for now is ” It’s only a matter of ‘time…’ ”
…Can’t wait for the next episode either!
I too enjoyed the program and the way Brian Cox presents scientific facts and interpretations and I like his portrayal of the sequence of time and temporariness and deterioration. He mentioned the second law of thermodynamics which defines the tendency of matter and temperature and pressure to deteriorate into equilibrium. He says that our Universe has evolved but that it will inevitably, according to the second law of thermodynamics, disintegrate and die leaving nothing but a desert of miniscule particles or photons. However, I believe that there is more to it than this.
Brian demonstrated entropy with the use of a sandcastle. The sandcastle, representing order, deteriorates rapidly to disorder because it’s partly constructed with water which evaporates and the remaining sand is blown about by the wind causing apparent disorder. A concrete sandcastle built on the moon would deteriorate far more slowly because there is no water to evaporate and there is no atmosphere to blow the particles about. Other factors, though, would cause it to deteriorate like heat and cold and sunlight and comet impact but in both cases the longer term factor would be gravity. Gravity restores order from chaos. It’s sole purpose is to form spheres. The sandcastles are both drawn towards the centre of their parent bodies as with all other objects in space.
Brian didn’t mention the first law of thermodynamics which states that energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created nor destroyed. Energy and gravity are universal and constant and, I believe, eternal.
Brian’s explanation implies that there is no other matter, or energy, outside of our known universe and that our universe will die as all matter and energy will ultimately spread out evenly into eternity. But I cannot comprehend that this would happen only once in eternity. Why would energy suddenly at one point in time change from a stable homogenous state to become an explosive chain reaction only to return eventually to another stable homogenous state? It seems unlikely that a primordial ‘soup’ of energy took an eternity to form our universe and will now take an eternity to dissipate it and will never be repeated. Also, I cannot imagine a universe where all particles of energy are evenly spaced and are not acted upon by gravity. My belief is that there is continual deterioration but that there is also continual rebirth ad infinitum.
Energy appears to coagulate into matter and all matter has a gravitational pull. Gravity then pulls matter together to form suns and planets and moons etc. In some areas of space large quantities of matter eventually form huge cores which implode and then explode back into tiny particles. From these tiny particles suns and planets are created some of which inevitably are suitable for the creation of life, although they eventually die and explode back into tiny particles. In all instances these tiny particles are thrust out into space but are attracted to other bodies by their gravitational pull and the whole thing starts again. Maybe our universe is the result of most of its matter coming together in a humungous core which then imploded and exploded producing a trail of interreacting bodies, including our galaxy and our solar system within.
Brian showed us a photo of the oldest known object in space believed to be the remnants of a massive explosion of a star close to the beginning of the creation of our universe. However, that explosion must have been the result of a massive gathering of matter which would have taken so long to construct by gravity that it started before our universe began. All the points of light in the sky are at different stages of construction or destruction. There’s an endless variety of scenarios – red dwarves, white dwarves, black holes, red giants, nebulae etc etc.
Many people seem to need to have beginnings and endings. I believe in infinity. Limitless time and limitless space. You cannot have nothing before something and you cannot have nothing after something. Time did not begin at a fixed point – There must have been time before that point. Similarly, space does not have an edge – There must be space beyond that ‘edge’. To me the above process of generation and regeneration has been going on literally forever and there could be other universes out there, which may even interreact with our own, that we cannot see because they have evolved and died before their light has had time to reach us. All the matter in our universe must eventually be captured by the gravitational pull of other bodies or universes for a repeat performance of another big bang with lots of mini bangs thereafter producing zillions of solar systems. A phenominal, pulsating, perpetual motion machine because energy and gravity cannot be destroyed.
Life, I’m certain, exists in other solar systems than ours and each will cease to exist when their suns die but suns, and galaxies, are continually being born and new life will be created where the conditions are suitable. Forever. Amen.
Probably a stupid question, but one that is bugging me.
If the universe started 13.7 billion years ago, so everything was in the same position then there was the big bang, how did GRB 090423 get to be 13 billion light years away from us in as short a time as .7 billion years?
Hi Mark,
It’s not a stupid question and I also find it hard to get my head around it. This is how I interpret it.
It takes the light from our sun about 8 minutes to reach us. If our sun were to suddenly go out, 8 minutes would pass before we noticed it. Light from stars that are further away from us takes even longer to reach us. The sun is not moving away from us. If it were then it’s light would take even longer to reach us. If it were moving away from us at the speed of light then we wouldn’t be able to see it at all but if it were travelling at very close to the speed of light, then we would be able to see it just as it first started to glow. In other words we are looking at objects in space as they were in the distant past. The further away they are and the faster they are moving away from us then the further into the past we are looking.
So what we are seeing at GRB090423 is where it was positioned and what it was doing 13 billion years ago. If the universe started 13.7 billion years ago then GRB090423 is positioned close to the centre of the Big Bang because we are seeing it at 13 billion years ago. But we are on the move too and the particles that make up our solar system weren’t postioned here 13 billion years ago. We would have been positioned much nearer to GRB090423 and also near to the core of the Big Bang. We are here 13 billion years later so we have been moving away from it for 13 billion years.
However, this gives me another problem that I cannot get my head around. Our sun, which is not a big star, is believed to have been created by the gravitational pull of interstellar dust about 4.5 billion years ago and is expected to last another 6 billion years. GRB090423 is thought to be the result of the death of a massive star, an object which surely lived much longer than 10.5 billion years. Perhaps we are seeing an object that existed before the Big Bang which was being sucked towards the core of the Big Bang and then became part of it. Can anyone explain this to me?
I think I am getting to understand where my comprehension problem lies, though am far away from getting my head around the answer I am finding. This issue appears to be to do with the comprehension of the big bang not as an explosion of matter into a void, but of space as a whole expanding, which apparently does allow for objects to move apart at a relative “speed” that is greater than light.
It is worth looking up “Metric Expansion of Space”.
From what I have read so far GRB090423 is 13 billion light years away from us because that is how long the light from it has taken to reach us. However, during that time the whole “scale of space” has expanded. I now need to find the “Dummies” guide to metric space expansion…
As you say the Big Bang is now not believed to be an explosion of matter but an expansion of space. I have a problem with space expanding. Space is nothing. How can nothing expand? And what was going on when and before space started to expand? This theory appears to me to be a construct designed to explain what has so far been inexplicable.
The Big Bang Theory is solely dependent on the Red Shift in light from the stars appearing to show that all stars are moving away from us. But what if the Red Shift is an illusion caused by light travelling such vast distances through and past so many tiny pockets of matter and energy in space. If the Red Shift is not valid in these circumstances then the stars will not all be travelling away from us. Instead there will have been no Big Bang and all matter in the universe will be continually disintegrating and reforming in local mini bangs when galaxies collapse.
Have a read at http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/. It explains much of what has been bothering me this week.
The current series of the of the “Wonders of the Universe” could be highly emotive and disadvantageous to the viewers.
I believe, it is not the authority of one individual (even a University Professor) to preach the thinking of the consensus of opinion in order to advance their own opinion on the uninformed when the opinion may eventually proved to be wrong. And which could be well beyond the time the presenter individual has successfully made their mark and recognition on society.
Overall the programme can be seen to enhance the popularity of the presenter while at the same time scaring the viewers into thinking what is the value of our overall existence is for nothing.
Science is a wonderful thing but in the wrong hands of a presenter it can be a very emotive and prove to be a very depressive view on the existence of the human race.
The arrow of time is useful, however, I believe, from previous research, the universe will not stop at just the stars fading out. The Big Bang theory started with something from nothing and it is totally illogical to suggest that (as was suggested in the last programme) that the Universe will just expand and die. Science is an uncertain field unless proven by factual recorded experience.
I believe future scientific thinking could equally reveal that the Universe will eventually (in some way) be re-born. Logically, something from nothing cannot result in nothing unless something intervenes to re-cycle the events. These questions remain unanswered and I believe it is wrong to present a programme that could prove a fait accompli that the Universe will just die when it may just re-invent itself.
It should be stated on the programme that science is a combination of observation, calculation and experiment that will always involve an element of uncertainty. Without this being communicated to viewers of the programme. People may totally believe what you say and that could prove to be reprehensible.
Regards
Len Watts
lenscom.uk@gmail.com
PS: I have since 1960 tracked scientific thinking and I really do believe in science when it provides factual evidence for the good of all humanity. However, this programme is based on a combination of fact and extrapolation of views resulting in a more more dramatic and scary consumption for viewers which is not conducive to realistic understanding and acceptance of our existence at this point in time.
I think it is true that the programme is one sided. Brian spoke of the ever expanding universe and things will be so far apart that they will simply stop “re-acting” with each other leaving bits of, large and small, iron floating around the vast emptiness. This could be the last final stage of the expanding universe and seems likely.
But will it carry on expanding or contract back on itself to have the “Big Crunch”?
I think Dr Cox is trying to put us humans and everything into context in the bigger pciture of the universe. Trying to make people who are not into scince to think that way and to look up more often has the universe is everyones home afterall…
This is such a good series, I am watching it tonight!
Interesting comments here, A lot of what is being discussed is covered in the book that follows the series, and no doubt will be covered later in the series. I came across an interesting article here that touches on some of this…
http://wellybob.blogspot.com/2011/03/arrow-of-time.html
It’s all mindblowing stuff. But the basic question for me is – What was going on before the big bang? We never get answers to this. It seems to simple minds like mine that this is what we need to know. Dr B Cox should be commended for his skill at interpreting comlicated deep ‘stuff’ to ordinary folk – very successfully. But what we all deeply desire is the answer to the question – Where did the cosmos come from? Where did the big bang come from?
Hi Sue,
It’s all a matter of opinion, and even Brian Cox cannot be sure, but my view is that the Big Bang was caused by most of the material in our universe falling by gravity to a massive central core which then exploded.
Before the Big Bang there must have been a universe much as we know it now but collapsing rather than expanding.
I also think there may be other universes doing the same thing and the process may keep repeating itself for ever.
I had this same thought, but couldn’t figure out what would cause the contraction, as I see it, gravity is not elastic. as distance increases, the effects of gravity decrease.
The bigger the object the more the gravity effect. Throw a ball up, it falls back down, so gravity can be and is ‘elastic’.
Unless all the galaxies and stars etc have reached the escape volicity of the universe? (like what the space shuttle, rockets have to do to escape Earths gravity)
An object can achieve a speed to escape from another object and overcome its immediate gravitational pull, but that object in flying off into space must, eventually, be captured by the gravitational pull of another object. You can see that in how stars are captured by the gravitational pull of their galaxies central core. I wonder if galaxies themselves are rotating around a central core. I wonder if that central core is where the Big Bang happened.
If there were only two objects in space is it not true that their gravities, however weak, would eventually slow down their rate of escape and, ultimately, cause them to return towards each other? Gravity does get weaker with distance but it will only cease to exist at infinity.
Glad you seem to have enjoyed the programme as much as I did! I just noticed the line about black dwarves turning into black holes. There’s a little misunderstanding there. A black dwarf would consist of electron degenerate matter at very low temperature and would remain in that state until perhaps the very particles making it up decay into radiation (E=mc^2) – something that would take the trillions and trillions etc years mentioned. A black hole is essentially what happens if you have an object so dense that spacetime around it is warped like mad and everything gets very cool (and mysetrious) indeed. In fact, if a white dwarf accumulates enough mass it can collapse into a neutron star, more and it could form a black hole. But it wouldn’t spontaneously do so on it’s own
After reading the comments here; while interesting ideas all, merely thinking that something must have existed beforehand, or that time is circular, is no basis for any scientific theory. The Second Law of Thermodynamics has never been seen to be violated and has basis in very fundamental physics, so it is sensible to assert that the Universe will move from order to disorder, as was explained in the programme. For this not to be the case would require known physics to be, for the most part, completely incorrect. Therefore, as a science programme, it was correct for Prof. Cox to put forward a scientific argument backed by the best current understanding. Whether the Universe will last forever or will contract again in a finite time relies on what shape it is and measuring this accurately is the aim of modern Cosmology. The heat death model discussed is the one that most measurements favour.
The Universe is a great place to live, isn’t it?!
I’d be interested in a show of hands for your thoughts around whether the universe will contract after its expansion. It’s a thought I’ve had for a while and can’t seem to find an answer or a reason in my brain. I’ve set up a quick poll… http://bit.ly/gkUcbz
If the universe just “appeared” one day billions of years ago with all the matter that is in it now what is to stop it happening again? Also if I remember my old physics teacher correctly you cant make something from nothing which is what the big bang champions are building their whole theories on. As they have worked out that 13.7 billion years ago there was a big bang and that the universe is expanding at such a speed someone would have been able to work out the size of our universe by now which would give us a definate edge to our universe. This in turn would then give rise to “and then what?” Nothingness? Does such a thing exsist in our 11 dimensional plain of exsistance and if so how? I am no Scientist but have my own therory on the universe. It is infinatly large and that our part of it came into being when all of the matter we see now was sucked into a black hole and then, when the black hole had absorbed as much as it could, it then expanded all of that collected matter in a “big bang” hurlng it outwards leaving us as we are today. This would be happening all over the mega-universe giving us the therory of parralle universe’s but all in one mega-universe as opposed to parrall universes that exsist in, what I can only assume, some other plain of exsistance. I could just be really stupid here with my thoughts but as I say Im no scientist. Also does time get slower the bigger the mass of the item? For example a mayfly only lasts a fraction of the time that a human does so he grows and lives at a quicker rate, a human on the other hand goes through what he perceives as time quicker than say the earth itself.
Just saw the second programme in the series and have to say it’s wonderfully enlightening. My only criticism is did the BBC have to go to the expense of flying Prof Cox all over the world to illustrate his explanations?
Thoroughly enjoyed Sunday nights programme.
Perhaps when the time arrives for Professor Brian Cox to have his own protons and neutrons rearranged a suitable epitaph to his memory would be the one written by Michael Cummings a young soldier killed in Northern Ireland in 1989.
‘Do not sit by my grave and weep.
I am not there, I do not sleep.
I am a thousand winds that blow.
I am a diamond’s glint on snow.
I am sunlight on ripened grain.
I am the gentle autumn rain.
When you awake in the morning hush,
I am the swift uplifting rush
of quiet birds in circling flight.
I am the soft starshine at night.
Do not stand by my grave and cry.
I am not there, I did not die.’
Arthur,
That is beautiful, thanks for posting.
i am going to wait until the series has finished before i comment on techical issues as such but would like to say how impressed i am with brian cox . he talks about complex things , but the average man on the street can begin to understand. wonders of the solar system was superb . this series has already surpassed it for me. thank you
Firstly i think the series is fantastic,it makes science accesssible to those who otherwise might not of even thought about it.
I watched the frst episode and was left with questions,so i went and looked at the varying theory’s out there.I think he was right to go with the “heat death” ending but i would of at least mentioend there are other ideas.
After just watching the 2nd episode regarding elements i was wondering whether in theory it would be possible for a blackhole to create elements beyond the known 92,obviously a blackhole being what it is seems to me the most powerful known entity in the universe any thoughts?
There are man-made elements which are above the 94 natural ones. So it could happen.
Man-made elements go from 95 to 112 and maybe a couple more. These are the ones that have names like Califorinum, Einsteinium, Copernicium (112). But most of them are really unstable.
After seeing the first two great episodes there are two ideas that came to my mind and which I would like to offer for discussion. I can well see the process that is discribed as the arrow of time and that at it’s end all matter and energy will be dissolved into nothingness. But what if that has happened before? Do we know what was before the big bang? Isn’t it possible that also the universe acts in cycli and that what we call the big bang was one of many (yet to come)? What if it all starts all over again? And again, and again ….
The second thought concerns religion: even in case it all ends as soon the arrow of time vaporates, even when all galaxies, matter and energy have vanished: for religious people there still exists, beyond all that, a realm where our souls will live on. Thát is a very powerfull idea too!
you stole my idea Geilenqirchen
No I didn’t
Entropy is not “a natural state whereby, if left untouched, things go from an ordered state to a disordered state”. It is a measure of the disorder in a system, as Dr Cox explained. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics implies that, over time, entropy increases. In other words, the universe by and large becomes more disordered and structure breaks down.
However, what seems to contradict this is the fact that our Solar System is now in a more ordered state than the cloud of dust and gas it’s supposed to have formed from. In other words, entropy has decreased in this case. It further decreased when the first life forms evolved on Earth. These are highly organised little systems, far more so even than the chemical soup in which they are thought to have formed. The evolution of life is a continuing reduction of entropy, resulting in human beings. We are far, far more ‘organised systems’ than the interstellar cloud from which we started. Entropy has decreased a hell of a lot in us.
There’s obviously an awful lot of self-organising going on in the universe – it’s inherently creative. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is clearly not the whole picture. I wonder if it’s been stretched too far beyond its original meaning.
I agree with you. He’s left out the first law of thermodynamics.
Let’s see what he says in the 3rd episode – It’s about Gravity.
The 2nd Law applies to an isolated physical system. In reality the only system we may really think of as isolated is the entire universe. Have a read of this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life
It discusses some of the treatments of such problems.
He also definitely didn’t leave out the 1st law: energy cannot be created or destroyed. That’s another case of, if it wasn’t true practically nothing would work the way it does. Anyone that could prove it false would make Einstein look like a three-year old poking playdough with a pencil. If I could ever be 100% sure of anything it would probably be that the 1st Law is true.
I meant that Brian didn’t refer to the first law in the program. Surely any discussion on the causes of and prospects for the universe should have included it. My arguments are based on them both being true.
Pingback: 2 Months On | Richer Ramblings
While I have learned a great deal from and appreciate this show, I also have a couple problems with some broad sweeping assumptions that must be made in order to accept the whole story.
these are the areas that I have difficulty with
1. In the beginning there was nothing then bang everything came into existence. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy is neither created nor destroyed rather converted from one state to another. This law is easily observed in nature. So I ask myself, if energy always exist in one form or another but is not created and destroyed then how does something like energy come from nothing. How does nothing produce anything for that matter. What is nothing? It’s the absence of things it is literally NO-Thing so how do you get SOME-Thing from NO-Thing? it makes NO-Sense.
This whole assumption sounds identical to the leap of faith required to believe in the Bible, Genesis 1, 1. “In the beginning God created the heaven and earth.”.
Both of these stories require a leap of faith that something came from nothing and to me that simply makes no sense. While I’m on the subject of faith, those who believe in the Bible as the account for how life came to be on planet earth emphasize that it is by an act of faith that you believe this account of things. Whereas, with science, they are trying to imply they have some kind of special knowledge about the Big Bang event. Both require a leap of faith, at least a Christian admits it as such.
This is a major point of difficulty for me, I cannot accept that SOME-Thing comes from NO-Thing without some seriously compelling logic (which there is not).
If space is expanding in all directions then no matter where you are, everything would appear to expand away from you in all directions. Here is a simple question that should be able to be answered if in fact there was a Big Bang, “Where in the universe did it take place?”. If everything is expanding out from a central point then it should be easy to identify that point not just in time but also in space. Why don’t I ever here about this point in space?
2. First law of thermodynamics – Energy is neither created or destroyed, simply converted from one form to another.
Second law of thermodynamics – Entropy, things tend to move from order to disorder.
The second law of thermodynamics is used in the “Destiny” episode to explain that all things will eventually wind down to a cold enough state that atoms are not moving. This opens the door to many questions in my mind.
Has anyone measured the speed of an atom or its half life, (I’m not talking about radioactive decay). If an atom of hydrogen is left alone in a space of nothing will it simply stop moving and evaporate into nothing? Again, how does something become nothing. Is heat or motion the measure of a things existence? Evaporation is the process of heat moving towards cold and this is the foundation of their premise that the universe will at some point stop existing. How then do stars form? There is a cloud of dust and gas that appears to coalesce then puff it ignites. So something that was cold created something that was hot via gravity? Is this entropy? or is this things moving from disorder into order?
for me there are many more questions than answers and I must say this was a spectacular series of educational shows but I would simply caution people to think for themselves and not simply accept everything presented as complete fact.
Enjoyed the 1st episode, just watched on DVD, with the rest of the episodes still to watch.
Also enjoyed the comments posted here, echoing several of my own questions.
I can’t grasp the link between the 2nd Law and why time exists, I think Dr Cox implies one explains the other.
I was also interested that he says that life as we know it can only exist in a universe where the 2nd Law operates. Nice, but why is that exactly? Especially since much of the debate above correctly identifies that life defies the 2nd Law by continually bringing order from chaos, decreasing entropy.
As to the eventual decay to nothingness being the final word, I agree with many who comment above that it seems unlikely that we exist on a once-off cosmic ride from order to chaos which will never be repeated. Wouldn’t it be statistically more likely that the current ride from big bang to heat death, if that is indeed the ride, is just one phase of a larger continual process. Or maybe I, like others here, intuatively resist the concept that the universe operates within any absolute and finite limitations, given that our lifetimes have seen observations which utterly blast away what were previously thought to be the limits of the universe. And yet, maybe in the end there are limits, maybe there is an end. Anyhow, what do we know, we’re just specks of dust on a speck of dust in a big speck of dust… It’s great!
Pingback: 42 | Farsan mitt i livet
Thank you Brian Cox. I have been thinking about all this since I was a kid. Now 83! In my early days I loved Fred Hoyle and his constant creation propersition.
Pingback: Time & Entropy | Richer Ramblings
Pingback: Wonders Of Life | Richer Ramblings
Pingback: The Universe | Richer Ramblings