The strangely low entropy of the universe

Ezra Klein (!) links to a weird and won­der­ful med­i­ta­tion on the strangely low entropy of the universe:

Why do we find our­selves so close to the after­math of this very strange event, this Big Bang, that has such low entropy? The answer is, we just don’t know.

Then there’s an anal­ogy with chick­ens and eggs.

(Thanks Dan!)

5 Responses

    Bergamot says:

    I’m not sure why he’s so quick to dis­count the anthropic prin­ci­ple, which seems to be a fairly decent explanation.

    i.e. If the uni­verse were had too much entropy to sus­tain life, we wouldn’t be here to ask the question.

    Robin Sloan says:

    But the anthropic prin­ci­ple seems to “break” sci­ence, doesn’t it? It’s the ulti­mate non-answer answer: “because.” And it’s not testable, is it?

    So—this is where I pose the ques­tion to the philosophers-of-science out there—even if it IS true, shouldn’t we ignore it? Con­sider it inad­mis­si­ble in the Court of Science?

    Maybe there’s some famous deep think­ing on the anthropic prin­ci­ple that I don’t know about…? I would love to dig deeper.

    Tim says:

    Well, it’s not even an anthropic pin­ci­plt, but a stable-universe prin­ci­ple. Lots of sta­ble uni­verses that look like ours, but with­out humans in them. And uni­verses that start out high-entropy burn up (as I under­stand it.)

    maybe the ques­tion we should be ask­ing is what is the max­i­mum level of entropy that can still self-regulate it’s own struc­tures for, say, ten bil­lion years. If our uni­verse is the solu­tion to this min/max prob­lem, that’s not ran­dom at all. 

    What’s more we could dis­cover typolo­gies of uni­verse. Maybe there are only a finite set that work! (where n is a monot­o­n­i­cally increas­ing number…)

    Rick Ryals says:

    No, it’s not an “Anthropic” prin­ci­ple, but it’s not a just a struc­ture prin­ci­ple either, as the pre­car­i­ously bal­anced physics that defines the hab­it­able zones that make up the Goldilocks Enigma applies to every planet in every galaxy that evolved under sim­i­lar cir­cum­stances as ours did.

    The AP is quite obvi­ously an energy con­ser­va­tion law.

    vanderleun says:

    I think it is also inter­est­ing that of the many who have found this fas­ci­nat­ing med­i­ta­tion few seem to link into the state­ment “This is just a giant clue that the real uni­verse has given to us to how the fun­da­men­tal laws of physics work. We don’t yet know how to put that clue to work. We don’t know the answer to the who done it, who is the guilty party, why the uni­verse is like that.”

    For many that sim­ply seems to por­tend too much.

The Snarkmatrix awaits your reply