From: goldenfieldquaternions@gmail.com   
      
   I thought this might create a bit of controversy. Einstein in one   
   of his papers from the 1920s addressed this. The paper can be found   
   in the compendium by Hawking "At Strange Persistent Illusion."=20   
      
   I don't think the temperature of the surface of stars would be the   
   equilibrium temperature. One could use the Stephan-Boltzmann equation   
   to estimate what that would be for a model cosmology with a density   
   of stars.=20   
      
   Einstein was certain the universe was an eternal static system.   
   What we observe as increase in entropy and so forth are in the end   
   just local fluctuations. There are of course reasons this sort of   
   model would be difficult. Hubble's discovery of the expanding   
   universe in effect threw these models out.   
      
   Entropy is a scalar and in cosmological models it does remain   
   constant. In fact general relativity derives the Einstein field   
   equations as second order differential equations that are ultimately   
   invariant with respect to the direction of time. We even see aspects   
   of this with the Schwarzschild solution and the Penrose diagram.   
   If the top and bottom singularities are identified with each other   
   there are then black holes and white holes, the time reverse of   
   black holes, and one could imagine a universe with a symmetry with   
   respect to time direction or the nature of collapse. Of course we   
   do further know that this is a mathematical idealization.   
      
   On a deeper level we appear to be recognizing that spacetime is a   
   manifestation of quantum entanglements, Raamsdonk et al, and that   
   quantum information is conserved. The appearance of thermodynamic   
   entropy is then a sort of local configuration of quantum information.   
   We then may ultimately have it that thermodynamic entropy is a sort   
   of illusion, in much the same way the uni-directional nature of   
   time may be an illusion.   
      
   This does not preclude the fact that star formation and large scale   
   structures we observe are transient. This is if you consider billions   
   or even trillions of years transient. Poincare recurrence is very   
   long for a cosmology, T ~ 10^{10^{100}} years. The recurrence for   
   quantum complexity is exponentially even longer. This is involved   
   with the stability of the vacuum or de Sitter vacuum of the universe.   
   So in a funny sense this might imply the universe does reprocess   
   in some way. However, for our local perspective these time scales   
   are hopelessly long. It is not possible to have a universe that   
   reprocesses material to maintain star formation in a continuous and   
   eternal manner.   
      
   LC   
      
   On Saturday, May 27, 2017 at 3:52:10 AM UTC-5, Gregor Scholten wrote:   
   > Lawrence Crowell  wrote:   
   >   
   > > I think Latham might be partially right if the universe were static.   
   >   
   > No, even with the universe being static, his statement would still be   
   > wrong. Let's imagine a static universe (e.g. one for which General   
   > Relativity turns out to break down on large scales). Imagine that in the   
   > initial state, there are big clouds of hydrogen and helium, with the H   
   > and He atoms being nearly equally distributed.   
   >   
   > Then let star formation start. Parts of the clouds collaps due to their   
   > own gravity and form stars. In the centres of the stars, fusion   
   > processes start that make the stars emit light. This emitted light   
   > increases the energy density of the electromagnetic radiation field, and   
   > by this, the temperature of that field (since there is no expansion of   
   > the universe that could cool down the radiation field by red-shifting).   
   >   
   > So, the temperature of the radiation field is increasing, and after some   
   > billions of years, it approaches the order of the temperature on the   
   > surfaces of the stars. This forces the stars to grow, since they need a   
   > bigger surface to emit the energy produced by the fusion processes as   
   > light. Finally, the stars grow that much that they dissolve.   
   >   
   > The matter distribution is then in some way similar to the initial   
   > state: big clouds with nearly equally distributed atoms. However, there   
   > are two crucial differences to the initial state: on the one hand, the   
   > temperature is much higher now (indicating a heat death!), and on the   
   > other hand, the element distribution is different, the portion of   
   > hydrogen has decreased whereas the portion of heavy elements, produced   
   > by the fusion processes in the stars, has increased.   
   >   
   > So, this final state has much more entropy than the initial state,   
   > making a re-start of star formation impossible. In other words: in the   
   > initial state, there was much energy accumulated as chemical energy (low   
   > entropy) in the hydrogen atoms, and by the stars fusing hydrogen to   
   > helium and heavier elements, that chemical energy has been transformed   
   > to heat (high entropy).   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)