0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
quote:Since the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy increases over time
quote:Originally posted by DoctorBeaverquote:Since the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy increases over timeActually it doesn't. It states that the entropy of a system can never decrease. That's different from saying it increases.
quote:Originally posted by Soul SurferIt depends what you mean by complexity and the way the question is phrased seems to suggest that you do not tefine it in the same terms that I do. In my book complexity as nothing more to do with entropy than obeying the second law of thermodynamics. Nothing to do with the number of protons electrons etc in our universe, and nothing much to do with hisenberg uncertainty, but it does have a lot to do with things that we can distinguish. Individual people are substantially similar but and all have unique life histories and can tell you about them if you ask them they are really complex. Amoebas are very similar to each others and can be considered to be clones but they can reproduce and control their environments in simple ways they arent so complex. Stars are pretty big things but their life history is virtually totally determined by the mass of material of which they are made unless they are closely associated with other stars. so stars are pretty simple things.Now to try to answer the question. The universe appears to be cooling down and most of it is too cold for life as we know it to flourish but there are and will continue to be plenty of hot spots in the form of stars with planets to allow life to form. Human beings are almost clever enough to design and build an Ark with which a significant number could live indefinitely in interstellar space and become independant of our star the sun so on the whole I think that complexity is likely to be increasingLearn, create, test and tellevolution rules in all thingsGod says so!
quote:Originally posted by Soul Surfer]I agree it would be a lot easier to send robots to the stars than humans because of their less stringen environmental requirements but they would have to be self replicating and repairing robots and that might be more difficult.
quote:As the universe cools it becomes possible for more finely divided energy states to exist without them being disrupted by the local temperature. To have any sort of life you need it to operate at a temperature where its chemical reactions are not totally stable. The carbon based chemistry of life appars to be the only one with sufficient complexity alhough I have read books that investigate other chemistries. There is also the question as whether electromagnetic lifeforms could exist on stars 'cos there's plenty of them around.
quote:Coming back to your thoughts about comuter model universes. Is this related to a matrix thipe idea in which "reality" is in fact a computer programme?if so its easy to kill the possibillity that our reality is a computer programme by considering the communications requirements (and the lack of glitches :-)
quote:Originally posted by Soul Surfercoming back to your "conservation of information" suggestion. The laws of thermodynamics are effectivlely this. Hence the big argument with Stephen Hawking and A N Other(can't remember his name at the moment)about the loss of information into a black hole and the entropy of a black hole which Stephen conceded recently saying that the info that went in could well come out as it evaporates.Learn, create, test and tellevolution rules in all thingsGod says so!
quote:Loeb, a theoretical astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, peers through Einstein-colored glasses. His view of the end of the visible universe is rooted in the General Theory of Relativity and based on the notion that everything is expanding at an ever-increasing pace.All distant galaxies are moving away from us and moving faster all the time. Few researchers debate this point. Few have predicted its ultimate consequence quantitatively as Loeb did. Eventually, Loeb says, galaxies will recede at the speed of light, making it impossible for their light -- or any other radiation or information -- to traverse the cosmos to our home in the Milky Way Galaxy."Any given source accelerates away from us and eventually reaches a speed larger than the speed of light so that photons emitted from it cannot catch up with the cosmic expansion, relative to us," he said.Already, galaxies more than 6 or 7 billion light-years away are beyond contact, Loeb figures. Such galaxies, measured by astronomers to have a redshift of 2 or more, will not be able to transmit any signal to us in the future due to the accelerated expansion of the universe."Suppose there are extraterrestrial civilizations in these galaxies," Loeb said in a telephone interview. "If we send a signal to them now, they will never see it."Like black holesThe point of no return for these galaxies in called an event horizon, a concept more commonly used to describe the hypothesized sphere around a black hole beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape
quote:Originally posted by Soul SurferYou have some fundamental errors in what you consider to be information and complexity if I have a box containing a gas it is very simple and can contain very little information as all the molecules obey simple laws and are largely indistinguishable If I now freeze this gas into a liquid and then a crystalline solid it can contain much more information because the cryatals could be of many sizes and orientations depending on how I do the freezing because the act of freexing fixes the information about how I did it. This is precisely the opposite of what you are saying above.Learn, create, test and tellevolution rules in all thingsGod says so!
quote:Originally posted by Soul SurferThat's where you've got it wrong! Lets assume that the gas is monatomic. All the atoms are essentially identical and all you need to define is the temperature the number of atoms and the space it occupies the velocities and directions of the individual atoms are not needed (or measurable) to give as complete a desccription as it is possible to give. A whole array of individual small crystals requires a lot more information and whats more it holds it.Learn, create, test and tellevolution rules in all thingsGod says so!
quote:The basic concept of entropy in information theory has to do with how much randomness there is in a signal or random event. An alternative way to look at this is to talk about how much information is carried by the signal.As an example consider some English text, encoded as a string of letters, spaces and punctuation (so our signal is a string of characters). Since some characters are not very likely (e.g. 'z') while others are very common (e.g. 'e') the string of characters is not really as random as it might be. On the other hand, since we cannot predict what the next character will be, it does have some 'randomness'. Entropy is a measure of this randomness, suggested by Claude E. Shannon in his 1948 paper A Mathematical Theory of Communication.
quote:Originally posted by Soul SurferThis is where you've got it wrong. information is related to the number of actual or potential distinct states that you can detect in a chunk of material. A volume containig a gas is a volume containing a gas and nothing else. You cannot identify the individual atoms from each other unless they are in a different physical state just going a bit faster or slower or in a different direction isnt enough. The statistics of the kinetic theory of gasses describe it completerely. If the gas condensed into a load of cryastals these could be arranged in all sorts of different ways and so there are loads of easily distinguishable states that it can be in.Learn, create, test and tellevolution rules in all thingsGod says so!
quote:PostulatesThe fundamental aspects of kinetic theory are given by several postulates:- Gases are composed of molecules in constant, random motion; the moving particles constantly collide with each other and with the walls of the container containing the gas- The collisions between gas molecules are elastic- The collisions of gas particles with the walls of the container holding them are perfectly elastic as well- The total volume of the gas molecules is negligible compared to the volume of the entire container. This is equivalent to stating that the distance separating the gas particles is relatively large compared to their size.- The interactions between molecules are negligible- The gas consists of very small particles, each of which has a mass- The gas particles are constantly moving rapidly in a random fashion- The average kinetic energy of a gas particle depends only on the temperature at which the gas particle is present- The gas particles exert no force on one another The above postulates accurately describe the behavior of ideal gases. Real gases approach ideality under conditions of low density and high temperature.
quote:Originally posted by Soul SurferHisenberg uncertainty defines both how accurately you can measure things and how much you disturb a system by measuring it.
quote:Consider a gas in a small box at room temperature. You may be able to measure the velocities and directions of individual atoms by watching the brownian motion of a single colloidal particle suspended in it using light. You may even be able to measure most of the infra red photons being emitted as a result of the atoms of gas bouncing off each other but you most certainly could not ever identify one atom individually and track its path through the gas let alone all of them.
quote: If this gas was condensed on to a solid surface it is possible to detect and manipulate atoms individually on this surface using an atomic force microscope (IBM have demonstrated this some years ago using xenon atoms). Lat me try to put it in a different way. cooling things down enables complexity to develop. OK it may be stable and relatively immobile like crystals in a lump of granite but these crystals hold the information on what the conditions were like when they were formed when they were formed and even information about what has happened to this lump of granite since it was formed. A gas is a gas it has no memory and is stuck in a perpetual now that doesn't change much unless the temeperature changes.I hope that I have finally convinced you gases are simple, condensed matter is much much more complex This is not just my opinion but the general opinion of the scientific community.