If entropy always increases then why arent we still a soup of quarks

You're forgetting the most crucial part my friend.

Entropy always increases in a closed system.

You, me, the earth, the galaxy, are all not closed systems. You could make the argument about the universe and you'd be right (potentially, we dont really know that much about the universe) but there is so much matter and energy in the verse that it will take an inconceivable amount of time to devolve into a soup.

Because quarks being bound in potential energy wells IS an increase in entropy.

Wrong.

Think about it like this. Take two stars with random velocities in space, separated by large distances. Move them closer to each other. Did entropy decrease or increase?

It increased, because you weren't 100% efficient with the energy it took to move them.

They are correct.

I would argue that if their relative velocities are truly random, it would be impossible for an outside observer to know if they are actually closer or not from one moment to the next.

This is not a closed system. The second law of thermodynamics doesnt apply anyways..

So you're implying the expansion of space (the stars moving apart) is actually decreasing entropy? The opposite is true. Also the expansion of space is not subject to concepts of "efficient"

space is spooky. nigga

It's decreasing entropy per unit of volume
>the expansion of space (the stars moving apart)
ahahahah

disorder is more probable than order

however given a large enough sample size, order (a gaussian distribution) will emerge (central limit theorum)

How so?

>thinks this is entropy

There are many different ways something could end up disordered. Why is any single way more or less random or "entropic" than another?

Because we (the universe as a whole) are at a more stable state now than we were as a soup of quarks and energy in the beginning of the universe

Define disorder, what if something that looks like a random jumble of matter to human eyes is actually a functioning machine.

It was a jest, directed at people like who unironically think what people mean when they talk about "order" for entropy is a specific distribution.

Who let the Poles into Sweden?

Ohhhhh fuuuuuuuu-

Disorder is potential to change to different states.

>why arent we still a soup of quarks
who says we aren't?

>If entropy always increases
it doesnt, its conserved.

>what is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

Entropy can either be conserved, OR increased. Because of this, there is a net increase in any sufficiently complex system over time.

If you're gonna shitpost at least put more effort in it than that.

Its only a theory

(a gauss)

Read the post I replied to.
Op suggested that physically moving two stars together would decrease entropy in that two star system.
It wouldn't.

Good definition, I get that we get our energy from the sun so while entropy can be reversed locally it can't be reversed as a whole, but how do you know what state it will turn into?

For all you know it could be forged into a diamond or some other long lasting substance and last until the great rip or something.

my nigga everything conforms to a distribution if it can be modelled

It's not reversed locally though.
The energy from the sun used to produce the carbon that the diamond turns into is used with around .1% efficiency.

Man, I feel like a soup of quarks. I should probably call my Physician.

>when you realize physicians don't have anything to do with physics

if the sun's energy were distributed randomly you'd just get some warm rocks

warm rocks are more random than some slightly cooler rocks plus a diamond

Entropy has never meant random.
It's literally defined as the number of microstates available to a macro state.

> when you realize physicists don't have anything to do with physic