| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
11 Jan 2007 05:21:14 PM |
| Object: |
thermodynamics |
Hi,
There is really no such thing as thermodynamics, no such thing as
entropy, because it's impossible to defined "chaotic" versus "ordered"
or "random" versus "non-random" independent of the oberver. You might
say that the following series
2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12...
is not random because it's the even numbers, while
5, 100, -2, pi, 3 + 4i, 7, ...
is random, but of course there exists some algorithm that will produce
the second series, as there exists for any series. You just don't know
what it is. If you knew what it is, you would not say it was random. It
depends on whether you notice a pattern, but whether you notice a
pattern, it depends on you. If you flipped a coin a bunch of times, and
got
H T H T H T H T
you would say it's not random, because it alternates between heads or
tails, but if you got
H H T H T T T H
You would say it's random, just because you don't see any pattern.
However, there is no objective difference between the two possible
results. If you got the first result, you would say, "wow! that's
unlikely", whereas if you got the second result, you would not feel
like something unlikely as occurred. However, in reality, the two
results are of identical likelihood! They are equally likely. Let's say
you flipped a coin a bunch of times, and got the following result
H H H H H H H
In that case, you feel like it's so unlikely that you suspect it's not
a fair coin. You might think it's an Abigail-Brittany Hanson coin.
However, there is no reason to suspect that because the above result is
no less likely than any other possible result. The only difference is
that you notice a pattern whereas usually you don't. However, this
"whether you notice a pattern" takes place only inside your head. It's
not out there in the universe.
Let's say you are playing poker, and you are dealt five unmatched
cards, that don't correspond to any of the official "hands" in poker.
You say you "got nothing". You don't feel like something unlikely has
occurred. Let's say, you are playing poker, and are dealt a royal
flush. You feel like something very unlikely has occurred. However, the
two hands were of equal likelihood. The only difference is that in our
society, we attach a significance to the second, and we attach no
significance to the first.
Let's say there is a country on the other side of the planet, and they
have the same deck of cards we do, and they play a game similar to
poker, except the hand you first received and considered "nothing",
they consider the highest possible hand, analogous to a royal flush.
However, they attach no significance to what we call a royal flush, and
instead call it "nothing". If someone in that country received the two
hands you received, their reaction would be exactly reversed from
yours. That means that this sense of likelihood is determined by
whether you attach a special significance to certain members of the
group. However, there is no objective reason to attach special
significance to any specific members are concerned. As far as objective
reality is concerned, they are all exactly the same.
Now, let's consider the air in the room you are in. Let's say there are
about 10^10^200 possible configurations of all the molecules of air in
the room you are in right now. That means that each possible
configuration of all the molecules of air in the room you are in right
now had a 1 in 10^10^200 chance of occurring. The exact configuration
of all the air molecules in the room you are in right now had a 1 in
10^10^200 chance of occurring. However, you don't feel like something
unlikely has occurred because we don't attach any significance to that
specific configuration. However, we do attach significance to the
stereotypical example of "all the air rushing to the corners of the
room". That is considered so unlikely that it would never happen.
Instead of just leaving it at that, some misguided souls felt that in
order to explain "why" it would never happen, they needed to invent a
mythical thing called "entropy", and a completely unneccissary "law of
thermodynamics" stating that if the air rushed to the corners of the
room, this thing they call "entropy" would supposedly "decrease" and
therefore violate some supposed "law of physics". It is absolutely
exactly the same as if you claimed you never get a royal flush, because
if you were to, it would decrease entropy, and therefore violate a law
of physics, or if you claimed that you can't flip a fair coin and get
ten heads in a row because if you were to, it would decrease entropy,
and violate a law of physics.
This is sheer insanity. As far as physics is concerned, there is no
difference between a royal flush, and any other possible combination of
five cards, there is no difference between flipping a coin and getting
ten heads in a row, and any other possible outcome you could get from
flipping a coin ten times, and there is no difference between all the
air rushing to the corners of the room, and any other possible
configuration of all the molecules of air in the room, including the
configuration that exists at this very instant.
There is such a thing as something being so unlikely you "know it's not
going to happen" even if it's technically possible. An example is
winning the lottery, it's so unlikely that you 'know it's not going to
happen" even though it's technically possible. However, this is
determined by whether or not the outcome was specified ahead of time.
Someone wins the lottery every year, and it was unlikely for them to
win as it would be for you to win, yet they won anyway. The reason is
because you did not select that person ahead of time. If you were to
select a person ahead of time, such as yourself, the likelihood of them
winning is so unlikely that you "know it's not going to happen".
Whoever eventually wins had the same likelihood of winning but you did
not select that person ahead of time, and consider the possibility of
them winning. It's same as the royal flush being selected ahead of
time, or getting heads ten times in row being selected ahead of time,
although in those cases it's not so unlikey that "you know it's not
going to happen". It could happen even if it's selected ahead of time,
although you feel something unlikely occurred if it does. However, you
winning the likelihood is so unlikely that you "know it's not going to
happen". All of the air rushing to the corners of the room is so
unlikely that "you know it's not going to happen". Of course the exact
configuration of all the molecules of air in the room you are in right
now had a 1 in 10^10^200 chance of happening, which shows things that
unlikely happen all the time, but you did not select that configuration
out of all the possible configurations ahead of time.
Therefore you can explain the fact that you don't see the air rushing
to the corners of the room you are in without inventing such a thing as
entropy or thermodynamics. There is no objective reason to attach a
significance to the precise configuration of all the molecules of air
in the room you are in rushing to the corners of the room any more than
there is to attach a significance to getting a royal flush, or flipping
a coin and getting ten heads in a row. This significance only exists
inside your head.
David McCormick.
.
|
|
| User: "WillE1" |
|
| Title: Re: thermodynamics |
11 Jan 2007 10:42:46 PM |
|
|
<ulmo@cheerful.com> wrote in message
news:1168557674.060058.102250@i39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Hi,
There is really no such thing as thermodynamics, no such thing as
entropy, because it's impossible to defined "chaotic" versus "ordered"
or "random" versus "non-random" independent of the oberver. You might
say that the following series...Snip.
It is good that you are thinking about these things and trying to find order
in your observations. I recommend that you read more on these subjects,
learn why scientists think the way they do. Keep digging. Will E.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: thermodynamics |
12 Jan 2007 08:49:16 AM |
|
|
wrote:
<snip>
David McCormick.
You don't understand the difference between a microstate and a macrostate.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The_Man" |
|
| Title: Re: thermodynamics |
11 Jan 2007 06:47:24 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Hi,
There is really no such thing as thermodynamics,
Really?
no such thing as
entropy,
Quite wrong. Entropy always gives the direction of spontaneous chemical
change. Take a freshman course in chemistry, and come back when you've
learend the basics.
because it's impossible to defined "chaotic" versus "ordered"
The association of entropy with "disorder" is very unfortunate, and
leads to endless confusion, particularly among those, like yourself,
with minimal science training or education.
Even at that, the defintion of entropy in terms of states (S = k log W)
is strictly only true for the micorcanonical ensemble. And since I am
quite sure you would not know the microncanonical ensemble if it bit
you on the *****, don't worry about it.
or "random" versus "non-random" independent of the oberver. You might
say that the following series
2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12...
is not random because it's the even numbers, while
5, 100, -2, pi, 3 + 4i, 7, ...
is random, but of course there exists some algorithm that will produce
the second series, as there exists for any series. You just don't know
what it is. If you knew what it is, you would not say it was random. It
depends on whether you notice a pattern, but whether you notice a
pattern, it depends on you. If you flipped a coin a bunch of times, and
got
H T H T H T H T
you would say it's not random, because it alternates between heads or
tails, but if you got
H H T H T T T H
You would say it's random, just because you don't see any pattern.
However, there is no objective difference between the two possible
results. If you got the first result, you would say, "wow! that's
unlikely", whereas if you got the second result, you would not feel
like something unlikely as occurred. However, in reality, the two
results are of identical likelihood! They are equally likely. Let's say
you flipped a coin a bunch of times, and got the following result
H H H H H H H
In that case, you feel like it's so unlikely that you suspect it's not
a fair coin. You might think it's an Abigail-Brittany Hanson coin.
However, there is no reason to suspect that because the above result is
no less likely than any other possible result. The only difference is
that you notice a pattern whereas usually you don't. However, this
"whether you notice a pattern" takes place only inside your head. It's
not out there in the universe.
Let's say you are playing poker,
Let's not.
and you are dealt five unmatched
cards, that don't correspond to any of the official "hands" in poker.
You say you "got nothing". You don't feel like something unlikely has
occurred. Let's say, you are playing poker, and are dealt a royal
flush. You feel like something very unlikely has occurred. However, the
two hands were of equal likelihood. The only difference is that in our
society, we attach a significance to the second, and we attach no
significance to the first.
Let's say there is a country on the other side of the planet,
Let's not.
and they
have the same deck of cards we do, and they play a game similar to
poker, except the hand you first received and considered "nothing",
they consider the highest possible hand, analogous to a royal flush.
However, they attach no significance to what we call a royal flush, and
instead call it "nothing". If someone in that country received the two
hands you received, their reaction would be exactly reversed from
yours. That means that this sense of likelihood is determined by
whether you attach a special significance to certain members of the
group. However, there is no objective reason to attach special
significance to any specific members are concerned. As far as objective
reality is concerned, they are all exactly the same.
Now, let's consider the air in the room you are in. Let's say there are
about 10^10^200 possible configurations of all the molecules of air in
the room you are in right now. That means that each possible
configuration of all the molecules of air in the room you are in right
now had a 1 in 10^10^200 chance of occurring. The exact configuration
of all the air molecules in the room you are in right now had a 1 in
10^10^200 chance of occurring. However, you don't feel like something
unlikely has occurred because we don't attach any significance to that
specific configuration. However, we do attach significance to the
stereotypical example of "all the air rushing to the corners of the
room". That is considered so unlikely that it would never happen.
Before you start with your "Deep" theories, why don;t you at least
learn the two postulates of statistical mechanics.
Instead of just leaving it at that, some misguided souls felt that in
order to explain "why" it would never happen, they needed to invent a
mythical thing called "entropy", and a completely unneccissary
or unnecessary!
"law of
thermodynamics" stating that if the air rushed to the corners of the
room, this thing they call "entropy" would supposedly "decrease" and
therefore violate some supposed "law of physics". It is absolutely
exactly the same as if you claimed you never get a royal flush,
You could really use a royal flush down the crapper.
because
if you were to, it would decrease entropy, and therefore violate a law
of physics, or if you claimed that you can't flip a fair coin and get
ten heads in a row because if you were to, it would decrease entropy,
and violate a law of physics.
What is the law of phsyics to which you refer? State it in words, so we
can marvel at your ignorance.
This is sheer insanity.
Finally, you wrote something that is true. Your post is sheer insanity,
As far as physics is concerned, there is no
difference between a royal flush, and any other possible combination of
five cards, there is no difference between flipping a coin and getting
ten heads in a row, and any other possible outcome you could get from
flipping a coin ten times, and there is no difference between all the
air rushing to the corners of the room, and any other possible
configuration of all the molecules of air in the room, including the
configuration that exists at this very instant.
There is such a thing as something being so unlikely you "know it's not
going to happen" even if it's technically possible. An example is
winning the lottery, it's so unlikely that you 'know it's not going to
happen" even though it's technically possible. However, this is
determined by whether or not the outcome was specified ahead of time.
Someone wins the lottery every year, and it was unlikely for them to
win as it would be for you to win, yet they won anyway. The reason is
because you did not select that person ahead of time. If you were to
select a person ahead of time, such as yourself, the likelihood of them
winning is so unlikely that you "know it's not going to happen".
Whoever eventually wins had the same likelihood of winning but you did
not select that person ahead of time, and consider the possibility of
them winning. It's same as the royal flush being selected ahead of
time, or getting heads ten times in row being selected ahead of time,
although in those cases it's not so unlikey that "you know it's not
going to happen". It could happen even if it's selected ahead of time,
although you feel something unlikely occurred if it does. However, you
winning the likelihood is so unlikely that you "know it's not going to
happen". All of the air rushing to the corners of the room is so
unlikely that "you know it's not going to happen". Of course the exact
configuration of all the molecules of air in the room you are in right
now had a 1 in 10^10^200 chance of happening, which shows things that
unlikely happen all the time, but you did not select that configuration
out of all the possible configurations ahead of time.
Your understanding of probability is quite poor.
Therefore you can explain the fact that you don't see the air rushing
to the corners of the room you are in without inventing such a thing as
entropy or thermodynamics. There is no objective reason to attach a
significance to the precise configuration of all the molecules of air
in the room you are in rushing to the corners of the room any more than
there is to attach a significance to getting a royal flush, or flipping
a coin and getting ten heads in a row. This significance only exists
inside your head.
Except that the number of molecules in a mole, for example, is so large
that only the most probable configurations are important.
David McCormick.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: thermodynamics |
12 Jan 2007 08:50:26 AM |
|
|
The_Man wrote:
<snip>
Quite wrong. Entropy always gives the direction of spontaneous chemical
change. Take a freshman course in chemistry, and come back when you've
learend the basics.
<snip>
Minor quibble- it's the Gibbs free energy, not the entropy.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Man" |
|
| Title: Re: thermodynamics |
12 Jan 2007 10:49:35 AM |
|
|
Andy Resnick wrote:
The_Man wrote:
<snip>
Quite wrong. Entropy always gives the direction of spontaneous chemical
change. Take a freshman course in chemistry, and come back when you've
learend the basics.
<snip>
Minor quibble- it's the Gibbs free energy, not the entropy.
I have a major quibble with your minor quibble :-)
It is true that the Gibbs free energy always gives the direction of
spontaneous chemical change. Spontaneous when delta G < 0 (under
conditions of constant pressure).
It is also true that the HELMHOLTZ free energy always gives the
direction of spontaneous chemical change. Spontaneous when delta A < 0
(under conditions of constant volume).
When you say "not the entropy", you are quite mistaken. Here's why:
delta G = delta H - T delta S (by definition)
Divide both sides by T. This is permitted, since T is never zero (3rd
law) and never negative.
delta G/T = [delta H /T] - delta S.
Recall that delta G, delta H, and delta S are the thermodynamic
functions FOR THE SYSTEM. So:
delta G (sys) / T = [delta H(sys) / T] - delta S (sys).
Almost there. What is -delta H(sys) /T? The entropy of the
surroundings.... delta S (sur). Hence
delta G (sys) / T = -delta S (sur) - delta S (sys).
For spontaneous change (and constant pressure!):
delta G (sys) <0.
Divide both sides by non-negative T, so
delta G(sys) / T < 0 and -delta S (sur) - delta S (sys) < 0.
Multiply by -1 and make appropriate changes in the inequality
delta S (sur) + delta S (sys) > 0.
But
delta S (sur) + delta S (sys) = delta S (universe)
so
delta S (universe) > 0 for a spontanous process, which is simply
the second Law. This shows that the Gibbs free energy is simply a
cleverly disguised statement about ENTROPY.
Am I right?
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: thermodynamics |
16 Jan 2007 07:51:46 AM |
|
|
The_Man wrote:
Andy Resnick wrote:
The_Man wrote:
<snip>
Quite wrong. Entropy always gives the direction of spontaneous chemical
change. Take a freshman course in chemistry, and come back when you've
learend the basics.
<snip>
Minor quibble- it's the Gibbs free energy, not the entropy.
I have a major quibble with your minor quibble :-)
It is true that the Gibbs free energy always gives the direction of
spontaneous chemical change. Spontaneous when delta G < 0 (under
conditions of constant pressure).
It is also true that the HELMHOLTZ free energy always gives the
direction of spontaneous chemical change. Spontaneous when delta A < 0
(under conditions of constant volume).
When you say "not the entropy", you are quite mistaken. Here's why:
<snip>
so
delta S (universe) > 0 for a spontanous process, which is simply
the second Law. This shows that the Gibbs free energy is simply a
cleverly disguised statement about ENTROPY.
Am I right?
I had to think about this for a bit. First, there may be some ambiguity
between "spontaneous" processes and "irreversible" processes, but the
larger problem with your argument is that you require a closed system.
Thus, you must invoke the entropy of the entire universe, something that
is not well defined. And conceptually, it is not economical to invoke
the behavior of a distant black hole when explaining, for example,
cellular respiration.
The Gibbs free energy is designed to handle open systems; thus it is
more proper to consider the Gibbs free energy primary for any sort of
reaction where mass or energy flow occurs across a boundary.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: thermodynamics |
12 Jan 2007 12:52:15 PM |
|
|
The_Man wrote:
u...@cheerful.com wrote:
Hi,
There is really no such thing as thermodynamics,
Really?
no such thing as
entropy,
Quite wrong. Entropy always gives the direction of spontaneous chemical
change. Take a freshman course in chemistry, and come back when you've
learend the basics.
because it's impossible to defined "chaotic" versus "ordered"
The association of entropy with "disorder" is very unfortunate, and
leads to endless confusion, particularly among those, like yourself,
with minimal science training or education.
Even at that, the defintion of entropy in terms of states (S = k log W)
is strictly only true for the micorcanonical ensemble. And since I am
quite sure you would not know the microncanonical ensemble if it bit
you on the *****, don't worry about it.
or "random" versus "non-random" independent of the oberver. You might
say that the following series
2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12...
is not random because it's the even numbers, while
5, 100, -2, pi, 3 + 4i, 7, ...
is random, but of course there exists some algorithm that will produce
the second series, as there exists for any series. You just don't know
what it is. If you knew what it is, you would not say it was random. It
depends on whether you notice a pattern, but whether you notice a
pattern, it depends on you. If you flipped a coin a bunch of times, and
got
H T H T H T H T
you would say it's not random, because it alternates between heads or
tails, but if you got
H H T H T T T H
You would say it's random, just because you don't see any pattern.
However, there is no objective difference between the two possible
results. If you got the first result, you would say, "wow! that's
unlikely", whereas if you got the second result, you would not feel
like something unlikely as occurred. However, in reality, the two
results are of identical likelihood! They are equally likely. Let's say
you flipped a coin a bunch of times, and got the following result
H H H H H H H
In that case, you feel like it's so unlikely that you suspect it's not
a fair coin. You might think it's an Abigail-Brittany Hanson coin.
However, there is no reason to suspect that because the above result is
no less likely than any other possible result. The only difference is
that you notice a pattern whereas usually you don't. However, this
"whether you notice a pattern" takes place only inside your head. It's
not out there in the universe.
Let's say you are playing poker,
Let's not.
and you are dealt five unmatched
cards, that don't correspond to any of the official "hands" in poker.
You say you "got nothing". You don't feel like something unlikely has
occurred. Let's say, you are playing poker, and are dealt a royal
flush. You feel like something very unlikely has occurred. However, the
two hands were of equal likelihood. The only difference is that in our
society, we attach a significance to the second, and we attach no
significance to the first.
Let's say there is a country on the other side of the planet,
Let's not.
and they
have the same deck of cards we do, and they play a game similar to
poker, except the hand you first received and considered "nothing",
they consider the highest possible hand, analogous to a royal flush.
However, they attach no significance to what we call a royal flush, and
instead call it "nothing". If someone in that country received the two
hands you received, their reaction would be exactly reversed from
yours. That means that this sense of likelihood is determined by
whether you attach a special significance to certain members of the
group. However, there is no objective reason to attach special
significance to any specific members are concerned. As far as objective
reality is concerned, they are all exactly the same.
Now, let's consider the air in the room you are in. Let's say there are
about 10^10^200 possible configurations of all the molecules of air in
the room you are in right now. That means that each possible
configuration of all the molecules of air in the room you are in right
now had a 1 in 10^10^200 chance of occurring. The exact configuration
of all the air molecules in the room you are in right now had a 1 in
10^10^200 chance of occurring. However, you don't feel like something
unlikely has occurred because we don't attach any significance to that
specific configuration. However, we do attach significance to the
stereotypical example of "all the air rushing to the corners of the
room". That is considered so unlikely that it would never happen.
Before you start with your "Deep" theories, why don;t you at least
learn the two postulates of statistical mechanics.
Instead of just leaving it at that, some misguided souls felt that in
order to explain "why" it would never happen, they needed to invent a
mythical thing called "entropy", and a completely unneccissary
or unnecessary!
"law of
thermodynamics" stating that if the air rushed to the corners of the
room, this thing they call "entropy" would supposedly "decrease" and
therefore violate some supposed "law of physics". It is absolutely
exactly the same as if you claimed you never get a royal flush,
You could really use a royal flush down the crapper.
because
if you were to, it would decrease entropy, and therefore violate a law
of physics, or if you claimed that you can't flip a fair coin and get
ten heads in a row because if you were to, it would decrease entropy,
and violate a law of physics.
What is the law of phsyics to which you refer? State it in words, so we
can marvel at your ignorance.
This is sheer insanity.
Finally, you wrote something that is true. Your post is sheer insanity,
As far as physics is concerned, there is no
difference between a royal flush, and any other possible combination of
five cards, there is no difference between flipping a coin and getting
ten heads in a row, and any other possible outcome you could get from
flipping a coin ten times, and there is no difference between all the
air rushing to the corners of the room, and any other possible
configuration of all the molecules of air in the room, including the
configuration that exists at this very instant.
There is such a thing as something being so unlikely you "know it's not
going to happen" even if it's technically possible. An example is
winning the lottery, it's so unlikely that you 'know it's not going to
happen" even though it's technically possible. However, this is
determined by whether or not the outcome was specified ahead of time.
Someone wins the lottery every year, and it was unlikely for them to
win as it would be for you to win, yet they won anyway. The reason is
because you did not select that person ahead of time. If you were to
select a person ahead of time, such as yourself, the likelihood of them
winning is so unlikely that you "know it's not going to happen".
Whoever eventually wins had the same likelihood of winning but you did
not select that person ahead of time, and consider the possibility of
them winning. It's same as the royal flush being selected ahead of
time, or getting heads ten times in row being selected ahead of time,
although in those cases it's not so unlikey that "you know it's not
going to happen". It could happen even if it's selected ahead of time,
although you feel something unlikely occurred if it does. However, you
winning the likelihood is so unlikely that you "know it's not going to
happen". All of the air rushing to the corners of the room is so
unlikely that "you know it's not going to happen". Of course the exact
configuration of all the molecules of air in the room you are in right
now had a 1 in 10^10^200 chance of happening, which shows things that
unlikely happen all the time, but you did not select that configuration
out of all the possible configurations ahead of time.
Your understanding of probability is quite poor.
Therefore you can explain the fact that you don't see the air rushing
to the corners of the room you are in without inventing such a thing as
entropy or thermodynamics. There is no objective reason to attach a
significance to the precise configuration of all the molecules of air
in the room you are in rushing to the corners of the room any more than
there is to attach a significance to getting a royal flush, or flipping
a coin and getting ten heads in a row. This significance only exists
inside your head.
Except that the number of molecules in a mole, for example, is so large
that only the most probable configurations are important.
David McCormick.
This is why I don't waste my time on unmoderated newsgroups because
retards post on these boards. The people who post on these boards are
so damn stupid, that you could not educate them even if they wanted to
be educated, which they don't, so there is no point in wasting your
time. For instance, "The Man" is so severely mentally retarded that he
could not possibly understand highschool math, and here this retard is
trying to talk about advanced physics. I am an expert on the most
advanced physics in existence. There are literally only about 100
physicists in the world that are at my level. I have written
extensively on advanced theorectical particle physics, high energy
physics, string theory, M-theory, cosmology, matrix theory, AdS/CFT
correspondance, brane worlds, homotopy, homology, cohomology, K-theory,
elliptic cohomology, the Langlands program. You can read a small
fraction of what I've written on my homepage.
http://www.geocities.com/jefferywinkler
Anyway, I don't suffer fools gladly, so I'm not going to try to waste
my time trying educate you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Man" |
|
| Title: Re: thermodynamics |
12 Jan 2007 02:21:14 PM |
|
|
wrote:
The_Man wrote:
wrote:
Hi,
There is really no such thing as thermodynamics,
Really?
no such thing as
entropy,
Quite wrong. Entropy always gives the direction of spontaneous chemical
change. Take a freshman course in chemistry, and come back when you've
learend the basics.
because it's impossible to defined "chaotic" versus "ordered"
The association of entropy with "disorder" is very unfortunate, and
leads to endless confusion, particularly among those, like yourself,
with minimal science training or education.
Even at that, the defintion of entropy in terms of states (S = k log W)
is strictly only true for the micorcanonical ensemble. And since I am
quite sure you would not know the microncanonical ensemble if it bit
you on the *****, don't worry about it.
or "random" versus "non-random" independent of the oberver. You might
say that the following series
2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12...
is not random because it's the even numbers, while
5, 100, -2, pi, 3 + 4i, 7, ...
is random, but of course there exists some algorithm that will produce
the second series, as there exists for any series. You just don't know
what it is. If you knew what it is, you would not say it was random. It
depends on whether you notice a pattern, but whether you notice a
pattern, it depends on you. If you flipped a coin a bunch of times, and
got
H T H T H T H T
you would say it's not random, because it alternates between heads or
tails, but if you got
H H T H T T T H
You would say it's random, just because you don't see any pattern.
However, there is no objective difference between the two possible
results. If you got the first result, you would say, "wow! that's
unlikely", whereas if you got the second result, you would not feel
like something unlikely as occurred. However, in reality, the two
results are of identical likelihood! They are equally likely. Let's say
you flipped a coin a bunch of times, and got the following result
H H H H H H H
In that case, you feel like it's so unlikely that you suspect it's not
a fair coin. You might think it's an Abigail-Brittany Hanson coin.
However, there is no reason to suspect that because the above result is
no less likely than any other possible result. The only difference is
that you notice a pattern whereas usually you don't. However, this
"whether you notice a pattern" takes place only inside your head. It's
not out there in the universe.
Let's say you are playing poker,
Let's not.
and you are dealt five unmatched
cards, that don't correspond to any of the official "hands" in poker.
You say you "got nothing". You don't feel like something unlikely has
occurred. Let's say, you are playing poker, and are dealt a royal
flush. You feel like something very unlikely has occurred. However, the
two hands were of equal likelihood. The only difference is that in our
society, we attach a significance to the second, and we attach no
significance to the first.
Let's say there is a country on the other side of the planet,
Let's not.
and they
have the same deck of cards we do, and they play a game similar to
poker, except the hand you first received and considered "nothing",
they consider the highest possible hand, analogous to a royal flush.
However, they attach no significance to what we call a royal flush, and
instead call it "nothing". If someone in that country received the two
hands you received, their reaction would be exactly reversed from
yours. That means that this sense of likelihood is determined by
whether you attach a special significance to certain members of the
group. However, there is no objective reason to attach special
significance to any specific members are concerned. As far as objective
reality is concerned, they are all exactly the same.
Now, let's consider the air in the room you are in. Let's say there are
about 10^10^200 possible configurations of all the molecules of air in
the room you are in right now. That means that each possible
configuration of all the molecules of air in the room you are in right
now had a 1 in 10^10^200 chance of occurring. The exact configuration
of all the air molecules in the room you are in right now had a 1 in
10^10^200 chance of occurring. However, you don't feel like something
unlikely has occurred because we don't attach any significance to that
specific configuration. However, we do attach significance to the
stereotypical example of "all the air rushing to the corners of the
room". That is considered so unlikely that it would never happen.
Before you start with your "Deep" theories, why don;t you at least
learn the two postulates of statistical mechanics.
Instead of just leaving it at that, some misguided souls felt that in
order to explain "why" it would never happen, they needed to invent a
mythical thing called "entropy", and a completely unneccissary
or unnecessary!
"law of
thermodynamics" stating that if the air rushed to the corners of the
room, this thing they call "entropy" would supposedly "decrease" and
therefore violate some supposed "law of physics". It is absolutely
exactly the same as if you claimed you never get a royal flush,
You could really use a royal flush down the crapper.
because
if you were to, it would decrease entropy, and therefore violate a law
of physics, or if you claimed that you can't flip a fair coin and get
ten heads in a row because if you were to, it would decrease entropy,
and violate a law of physics.
What is the law of phsyics to which you refer? State it in words, so we
can marvel at your ignorance.
This is sheer insanity.
Finally, you wrote something that is true. Your post is sheer insanity,
As far as physics is concerned, there is no
difference between a royal flush, and any other possible combination of
five cards, there is no difference between flipping a coin and getting
ten heads in a row, and any other possible outcome you could get from
flipping a coin ten times, and there is no difference between all the
air rushing to the corners of the room, and any other possible
configuration of all the molecules of air in the room, including the
configuration that exists at this very instant.
There is such a thing as something being so unlikely you "know it's not
going to happen" even if it's technically possible. An example is
winning the lottery, it's so unlikely that you 'know it's not going to
happen" even though it's technically possible. However, this is
determined by whether or not the outcome was specified ahead of time.
Someone wins the lottery every year, and it was unlikely for them to
win as it would be for you to win, yet they won anyway. The reason is
because you did not select that person ahead of time. If you were to
select a person ahead of time, such as yourself, the likelihood of them
winning is so unlikely that you "know it's not going to happen".
Whoever eventually wins had the same likelihood of winning but you did
not select that person ahead of time, and consider the possibility of
them winning. It's same as the royal flush being selected ahead of
time, or getting heads ten times in row being selected ahead of time,
although in those cases it's not so unlikey that "you know it's not
going to happen". It could happen even if it's selected ahead of time,
although you feel something unlikely occurred if it does. However, you
winning the likelihood is so unlikely that you "know it's not going to
happen". All of the air rushing to the corners of the room is so
unlikely that "you know it's not going to happen". Of course the exact
configuration of all the molecules of air in the room you are in right
now had a 1 in 10^10^200 chance of happening, which shows things that
unlikely happen all the time, but you did not select that configuration
out of all the possible configurations ahead of time.
Your understanding of probability is quite poor.
Therefore you can explain the fact that you don't see the air rushing
to the corners of the room you are in without inventing such a thing as
entropy or thermodynamics. There is no objective reason to attach a
significance to the precise configuration of all the molecules of air
in the room you are in rushing to the corners of the room any more than
there is to attach a significance to getting a royal flush, or flipping
a coin and getting ten heads in a row. This significance only exists
inside your head.
Except that the number of molecules in a mole, for example, is so large
that only the most probable configurations are important.
David McCormick.
This is why I don't waste my time on unmoderated newsgroups because
retards post on these boards. The people who post on these boards are
so damn stupid, that you could not educate them even if they wanted to
be educated, which they don't, so there is no point in wasting your
time. For instance, "The Man" is so severely mentally retarded that he
I'll try to keep to civility. See below for my analysis of your
webpage.
could not possibly understand highschool math, and here this retard is
trying to talk about advanced physics. I am an expert on the most
advanced physics in existence. There are literally only about 100
physicists in the world that are at my level. I have written
extensively on advanced theorectical particle physics, high energy
physics, string theory, M-theory, cosmology, matrix theory, AdS/CFT
correspondance, brane worlds, homotopy, homology, cohomology, K-theory,
elliptic cohomology, the Langlands program. You can read a small
fraction of what I've written on my homepage.
I only got as far as the page on "quantum physics".
Let's talk about the "particle in the box". You are to be commended for
thinking about difficult subjects. Nevertheless, you don't understand
the topic well, as I will show.
You draw the "solution" between 0 and x. How you got this solution, you
don't say, probably because you copied it out of a textbook. How do I
know this? This is only ONE of an INFINITE number of solutions, so you
only missed an INFINITE number of the right answers. Cool.
The solution can be written in a closed form; you did not do this,
though you write out many other equations, and "explain" Psi^2. What is
Psi? You don't know. In fact, there are an inifinte number of Psi(n)'s.
The solution has to satisfy the Schroedinger equation, which you omit,
though it is certaiinly more important than much of the drivel you've
written. The equation has certain boundary conditions, which someone as
"brilliant" as yourself in math seems to overlook. This oversight
betrays a complete misunderstanding of what is going on; it is the
boundary conditions that lead DIRECTLY to the quantization of energies
(you write down the formulae for the energies, but you did not derive
it, which is easily done).
You say "n=1, 2, 3 are the different nodes", whcih proves you don't
know what a NODE is. The n-1 case has ZERO nodes, the n=2 case has ONE
node, and so on.
Why do the solutions have to be integers? You don't say, 'cause ya
don't know.
Can n=0? Why or why not? Can the electron have zero energy? Why or why
not?
What is the momentum of the electron? What happens as n-> infinity?
HInt: it's pretty fucking important.
Didn't you notice that the probability for the electron (at least in
YOUR mind) tends to hang in the middle? Is this what we would predict
from classical mechanics?
--------
Your understanding of the hydrogen atom problem is hysterical. I nearly
laughed myself to death. The energy of an electron in hydrogen DOES NOT
DEPEND on the distance from the nucleus! Got it? A 1s electron has a
finite probability of being located at the nucleus. If you don't know
this, go learn something - hyperfine coupling depends on this.
Calculate the energy of an electron located in the the nucleus, and you
MIGHT notice a problem.
Hint: the energy of a 1s electron (in the absence of other electrons)
is CONSTANT. Even Bohr's model had this correct. How can this be????
You forgot about kinetic energy, dolt.
Maybe if you spent more time READING textbooks, and less time COPYING
them to impress your friends, you might get somewhere.
http://www.geocities.com/jefferywinkler
Anyway, I don't suffer fools gladly, so I'm not going to try to waste
my time trying educate you.
What University did you graduate from? Where did you get your Ph.D.?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: thermodynamics |
12 Jan 2007 02:59:31 PM |
|
|
The_Man wrote:
Why do the solutions have to be integers? You don't say, 'cause ya
don't know.
What happens at integral fractions?
Your understanding of the hydrogen atom problem is hysterical. I nearly
laughed myself to death. The energy of an electron in hydrogen DOES NOT
DEPEND on the distance from the nucleus! Got it? A 1s electron has a
finite probability of being located at the nucleus. If you don't know
this, go learn something - hyperfine coupling depends on this.
Calculate the energy of an electron located in the the nucleus, and you
MIGHT notice a problem.
Hint: the energy of a 1s electron (in the absence of other electrons)
is CONSTANT. Even Bohr's model had this correct. How can this be????
You forgot about kinetic energy, dolt.
Heh, he was wriht that you're a retard. The el=E8ctr=F2n /must/ be in
the presence of another charge: the prot=F2n. And you commit academic
suicide when you claim that the =E8n=E8rjy (potential) is not
distance-dependent. It is Coulomb's law that kills quantum
statistics/st=F2kastics, and not elsewise. The spread of each orbital
for all space-time is because each mote has equipotentials with other
charges which are withweihts to it. The atom is like a
multidimensional pulley/seesaw. That it has open intervals and a mean
potential doesn't mean that its =E8n=E8rjy is constant for the whole
level. You couldn't even prove that it is.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Man" |
|
| Title: Re: thermodynamics |
12 Jan 2007 03:24:59 PM |
|
|
Autymn D. C. wrote:
The_Man wrote:
Why do the solutions have to be integers? You don't say, 'cause ya
don't know.
What happens at integral fractions?
The wavefunction won't satisfy the boundary conditions [Psi(0) =3D0, and
Psi(L)=3D0]
Your understanding of the hydrogen atom problem is hysterical. I nearly
laughed myself to death. The energy of an electron in hydrogen DOES NOT
DEPEND on the distance from the nucleus! Got it? A 1s electron has a
finite probability of being located at the nucleus. If you don't know
this, go learn something - hyperfine coupling depends on this.
Calculate the energy of an electron located in the the nucleus, and you
MIGHT notice a problem.
Hint: the energy of a 1s electron (in the absence of other electrons)
is CONSTANT. Even Bohr's model had this correct. How can this be????
You forgot about kinetic energy, dolt.
Heh, he was wriht that you're a retard. The el=E8ctr=F2n /must/ be in
the presence of another charge: the prot=F2n. And you commit academic
suicide when you claim that the =E8n=E8rjy (potential) is not
POTENTIAL energy is distance dependent; ENERGY (in general, for the H
atom) is NOT. How can I prove this? The sharp emission lines from H
show that each energy level has a SINGLE energy, even though the
electron in each level is (obviously) at various distances from the
nucleus.
distance-dependent. It is Coulomb's law that kills quantum
Coulomb's Law makes CERTAIN quantum problems unsolvable in closed form
- true, but this is a consequence of electron-electron repulsion.
statistics/st=F2kastics, and not elsewise. The spread of each orbital
for all space-time is because each mote has equipotentials with other
charges which are withweihts to it. The atom is like a
multidimensional pulley/seesaw. That it has open intervals and a mean
potential doesn't mean that its =E8n=E8rjy is constant for the whole
level. You couldn't even prove that it is.
I don't have to prove it - Bohr proved it 100 years ago.
"It was in all the papers, boss!"
=20
-Aut
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: thermodynamics |
12 Jan 2007 04:57:51 PM |
|
|
The_Man wrote:
Autymn D. C. wrote:
The_Man wrote:
Why do the solutions have to be integers? You don't say, 'cause ya
don't know.
What happens at integral fractions?
The wavefunction won't satisfy the boundary conditions [Psi(0) =3D0, and
Psi(L)=3D0]
O, is that all.
Heh, he was wriht that you're a retard. The el=E8ctr=F2n /must/ be in
the presence of another charge: the prot=F2n. And you commit academic
suicide when you claim that the =E8n=E8rjy (potential) is not
POTENTIAL energy is distance dependent; ENERGY (in general, for the H
atom) is NOT. How can I prove this? The sharp emission lines from H
show that each energy level has a SINGLE energy, even though the
electron in each level is (obviously) at various distances from the
nucleus.
When one says one word, it should stand for a property without
composits, such as cinetic or potential. When it has composits, there
are two words: mekanic =E8n=E8rjy. They're not infinitely sharp.
distance-dependent. It is Coulomb's law that kills quantum
Coulomb's Law makes CERTAIN quantum problems unsolvable in closed form
- true, but this is a consequence of electron-electron repulsion.
statistics/st=F2kastics, and not elsewise. The spread of each orbital
for all space-time is because each mote has equipotentials with other
charges which are withweihts to it. The atom is like a
multidimensional pulley/seesaw. That it has open intervals and a mean
potential doesn't mean that its =E8n=E8rjy is constant for the whole
level. You couldn't even prove that it is.
I don't have to prove it - Bohr proved it 100 years ago.
"It was in all the papers, boss!"
Bohr didn't even know that the charge dives into the nucleus.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: thermodynamics |
12 Jan 2007 02:47:56 PM |
|
|
u=2E..@cheerful.com wrote:
This is why I don't waste my time on unmoderated newsgroups because
retards post on these boards. The people who post on these boards are
so damn stupid, that you could not educate them even if they wanted to
be educated, which they don't, so there is no point in wasting your
time. For instance, "The Man" is so severely mentally retarded that he
could not possibly understand highschool math, and here this retard is
trying to talk about advanced physics. I am an expert on the most
Statisticians don't count like your essay does. They're utilitarian,
which means the outcomes must be useful to something givven. The_Man
commits a fraud, however, when he wrongly claims that there are no
negative temperatures. You should look up my posts with
"th=E8rmodunamics" in them, and for my treatise against this field.
advanced physics in existence. There are literally only about 100
physicists in the world that are at my level. I have written
extensively on advanced theorectical particle physics, high energy
physics, string theory, M-theory, cosmology, matrix theory, AdS/CFT
correspondance, brane worlds, homotopy, homology, cohomology, K-theory,
elliptic cohomology, the Langlands program. You can read a small
fraction of what I've written on my homepage.
http://www.geocities.com/jefferywinkler
Who is David McCormick?
Anyway, I don't suffer fools gladly, so I'm not going to try to waste
my time trying educate you.
You take after Aristotle who was a deluded fool subject to his own
time. There are no zeros, no contradictions in the truthe, no true
laws, and no lone first causes. Science is not what folks say or
believe or think. Your essays are more Aspergian than scientific, a
dirty snowball of trivia without wide and endly efficacy. And you're
descended from Norman cretinsan scum, and seem to hav multiplex
personalities with ulterior motivs, so you must be ousted.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: thermodynamics |
11 Jan 2007 06:00:23 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Hi,
There is really no such thing as thermodynamics, no such thing as
entropy, because it's impossible to defined "chaotic" versus "ordered"
or "random" versus "non-random" independent of the oberver. You might
say that the following series
2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12...
is not random because it's the even numbers, while
5, 100, -2, pi, 3 + 4i, 7, ...
is random,
No it's not. 5, 100, -2, pi, 3 + 4i, 7, ... is not random.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kunzmilan" |
|
| Title: Re: thermodynamics |
15 Jan 2007 08:16:03 AM |
|
|
ulmo@cheerful.com wrote:
Hi,
There is really no such thing as thermodynamics, no such thing as
entropy, because it's impossible to defined "chaotic" versus "ordered"
Your thinking is chaotic or ordered?
Your message is chaotic or ordered?
If you think correctly, words in your post should be ordered wery
carefully, to give a sense.
You are not a poet, and you do not write verses.
Newertheless, distances, especially long distances between consecutive
apearences of
individual letters, a, b, c, till z, or whole words in your post have
some specific statistical properties. You did not ordered them in such
a way knowingly. You counted not how many times you used individual
words, newertheless their counts exist, and their statistics can be
studied and connected with entropy.
Disorder is only unrecognized order.
kunzmilan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: thermodynamics |
15 Jan 2007 01:07:20 PM |
|
|
kunzmilan wrote:
some specific statistical properties. You did not ordered them in such
order
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: The " Wave-Particle Duality " is synthetic, not intrinsic. |
18 Jan 2007 08:27:57 AM |
|
|
Hi McCormick, " Entropy " is a synthetic model of likely outcomes,
given the fact that nature _Spontaneously_ dissipates. In other words,
dissipation happens behind our backs, while no one's watching.
As I recently told my good friends T_Wake and Eric_Gisse...
We can't create synthetic models having time as a spatial dimension
when there aren't enough " Prior Knowns ", e.g. supernovae and quarks.
All the same, the cosmos is quite uneffected by such ignorance,
it still goes on being as it is... perfectly causal... only notionally random.
Likewise... The " Wave-Particle Duality " is synthetic, not intrinsic,
an artifact of models that vary depending on prior knowns;
e.g. temperature, pressure, density, volts, etc.
Near absolute zero, bosons ( e.g. photons and even large molecules )
become coherent; and so we know, a priori, their fequency ( i.e. momentum ).
But, being so cold ( i.e. coherent ), there's no ( incoherent ) radiation
to indicate which of the two slits the laser might've passed through;
i.e., you can't discover that information... not even in theory.
This " Uncertainty Principle " has nothing to do with
the Absolute Certainty that the cosmos is ( everywhere and always )
truly causal ( and only falsely random, statistical ).
So, all changes ( and all choices ) are purely virtual ( i.e. not intrinsic ).
Time is truly spatial ( falsely directional ) and
" virtual life " arises from the cosmic ( i.e. eternal ) consumption
of Gibbs Free Energy. ( Note, like entropy, QM is cosmic in scope )
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: thermodynamics |
11 Jan 2007 05:29:22 PM |
|
|
In article <1168557674.060058.102250@i39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
Hi,
There is really no such thing as thermodynamics, no such thing as
entropy, because it's impossible to defined "chaotic" versus "ordered"
or "random" versus "non-random" independent of the oberver.
Bzzt wrong but thanks for playing!
--
Saucerhead lingo #2102 "However, since PTP is in reality NOT a budding
astrophysicist..." ... "Perhaps if we try distraction as a tactic people
will forget we cannot answer simple conflicting issues with our nonsense
theory"
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
