The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Non Life Sciences
  3. Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology
  4. How remiss is our attitude towards entropy?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

How remiss is our attitude towards entropy?

  • 35 Replies
  • 3999 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bill S (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3631
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 110 times
    • View Profile
Re: How remiss is our attitude towards entropy?
« Reply #20 on: 08/01/2019 19:42:43 »
Quote from: Phyti
Maybe I got no response because the correct word was 'increase' instead of 'decrease'.

I meant to query this but lack of time, and an influx of responses deflected me.   

#2 should now read: “How can entropy increase on a universal scale, while having structures (atoms, planets, stars, galaxies, plants, life forms, etc) being formed by organizing entities (gravitational, chemical, nuclear,  DNA, etc)?”

Possibly the answer is that entropy can, and does, decrease locally; but the mechanisms of such decreases give rise to globally increased entropy.

These days entropy is firmly linked to atomic theory and statistical physics, but engineers were using the concept before the scientific establishment in general believed that atoms were more significant than any other Greek “mythology”.

Quote
Shuffle a deck of cards out of the pack. The cards have an order, it's just not the one matching the standard definition.

Precisely, their order makes no difference to their thermodynamic entropy, but global entropy is decreased by the action of shuffling.

Quote
Let's move ahead with a set of atoms at approx. 0 Kelvin. Near zero energy, but having a fixed arrangement, highly ordered.

I would see this as a “system” that (locally) has very low entropy.  Presumably, you were thinking in terms of a process by which the temperature of this “set of atoms” was reduced to “near zero energy”.  This process must lead to globally increased entropy.
Logged
There never was nothing.
 



Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 28632
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 65 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How remiss is our attitude towards entropy?
« Reply #21 on: 08/01/2019 23:24:54 »
Phyti " A deterministic universe is not possible, since it would require a simultaneous knowledge of its current 'now' state. "

Well, you can. Just allow all possibilities statically.  Forget 'time' for it. Then allow for a arrow and decoherence, scaling it up. Also allow for HUP and 'free will'. Now you got both, your local arrow combined with your free will, redefining your reality in a dynamic manner. 'It's not 'deterministic' in a usual sense, although you can see it as all 'states possible' already are 'known'. The beauty of it is that I don't need to introduce 'new universes' for each 'probability possible', I do it the opposite way, letting your free will create reality, with the rest being 'probabilities' unfulfilled.

You could possibly see it as a result of so called 'super positions'. If one assume that 'systems' unobserved are in superpositions then those include all possibilities too. the definition of a outcome is another thing, but as long as those superpositions exist the system is open for interpretations, no matter what the question or/and circumstances might be. With the probability of a outcome defined by the circumstances surrounding 'the experiment/question' etc.
« Last Edit: 09/01/2019 05:36:14 by yor_on »
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
 
The following users thanked this post: Zer0

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 6807
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 174 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: How remiss is our attitude towards entropy?
« Reply #22 on: 09/01/2019 21:33:34 »
In the universe we have families of galaxy types. These include elliptical and spiral galaxies. On this scale we see order. That is irrelevant. There is disorder in the detail. In other solar systems we are finding planets that continue to defy expectation. There is a greater variety than expected. So entropy may really be a localised phenomena which is hidden from view on a global, universal scale. Much as the quantum world is hidden from our macroscopic view. The devil really is in the detail.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
 

Offline evan_au

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 9202
  • Activity:
    71.5%
  • Thanked: 922 times
    • View Profile
Re: How remiss is our attitude towards entropy?
« Reply #23 on: 09/01/2019 23:30:41 »
Quote from: jeffreyH
galaxy types... These include elliptical and spiral galaxies.
Spiral galaxies have a somewhat orderly motion within the galactic disk - and somewhat less orderly in the central bulge.
- This is because, over time, stars which have high velocity or orbit well outside the galactic plane (eg captured dwarf galaxies) have their motions averaged out. This averaging of angular momentum means that more mass ends up in the galactic bulge (and ultimately, in the central black hole).

Elliptical galaxies have much less order in the motion of their stars (higher entropy)
- Some astronomers have suggested that elliptical galaxies could form from the recent merger of two large spiral galaxies ("recent" in astronomical terms)
- This would throw the two orderly motions into chaotic motion
- It is only with time that the random motions of the individual stars average out
- Some stars will plunge close to the new galactic core (and perhaps feed the new, merged galactic black holes)
- Others will be thrown out of the galaxy entirely (where is it hard to see them)

Such a merger is on the horizon for our Milky Way galaxy, and the larger Andromeda galaxy, in about 5 billion years.

This chaotic stage during the merger makes it hard to time-reverse a galaxy merger as a thought experiment
- If you could measure the position, velocity and mass of all the stars of a merged galaxy (perhaps not possible if they have been swallowed by the central black hole, and not easy otherwise)
- And try running time backwards in a simulation
- I doubt that you will end up with two neat spirals!
« Last Edit: 09/01/2019 23:34:58 by evan_au »
Logged
 

Offline Bill S (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3631
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 110 times
    • View Profile
Re: How remiss is our attitude towards entropy?
« Reply #24 on: 10/01/2019 17:31:15 »
Quote from: yor_on
Just allow all possibilities statically.  Forget 'time' for it. Then allow for a arrow and decoherence, scaling it up. Also allow for HUP and 'free will'. Now you got both, your local arrow combined with your free will, redefining your reality in a dynamic manner. 'It's not 'deterministic' in a usual sense, although you can see it as all 'states possible' already are 'known'. The beauty of it is that I don't need to introduce 'new universes' for each 'probability possible', I do it the opposite way, letting your free will create reality, with the rest being 'probabilities' unfulfilled.

Doesn't this result in a reality that exists only in the mind?  Dorothy Rowe  maintains that reality for each of us is the sum total of our brain’s interpretations of the flood of external stimuli it constantly receives, but she's a psychologist.  Should we be looking for some objective reality?   

 
Logged
There never was nothing.
 



guest4091

  • Guest
Re: How remiss is our attitude towards entropy?
« Reply #25 on: 11/01/2019 19:37:36 »
Bill S #20;

Quote
I would see this as a “system” that (locally) has very low entropy.  Presumably, you were thinking in terms of a process by which the temperature of this “set of atoms” was reduced to “near zero energy”.  This process must lead to globally increased entropy.
---

This example was intended to remove any association of entropy with order. Clausius (1800's) is credited with the 2nd law of thermodynamics which defines entropy as 'a measure of available energy'. It applies to all forms of energy.

A star is formed from gravitation acting on a cloud of dust/gas. Isn't this a case of a  diffuse low entropy object transforming to a high entropy object?

A seed is planted. In the presence of water and sunlight from the previous concentrated source, genetic code instructs the seed to form a structure, which when harvested, serves as an energy source for a life form.

This shows entropy simultaneously changing in both directions, globally and locally.

For a finite universe to 'run down', would require removal of the known forces of physics, which are organizing matter into concentrated systems of energy.

Logged
 

guest4091

  • Guest
Re: How remiss is our attitude towards entropy?
« Reply #26 on: 11/01/2019 19:41:02 »
yor_on #21;

There are two things of interest.

1. What is the state of a system.

2. Do we know the state of a system.

Probabilities are weighted values from analysis of statistics (which are historical).

They are used for predictions, when causes are unknown (eg. particle physics) or too complex to calculate (eg. weather).

They are useful (eg. astronomical observations) only because the laws regulating the behavior of the universe are consistent.

--------

Knowing the state of a system requires observation. If you are observing an object 100 ly distant, your knowledge of its state is outdated. You don't even know if it's still in existence. (The tourist pulls over to ask for directions. The old man replies: 'it's down the road, where the old school house used to be.')

Because light speed is finite, the age of your data depends on distance.

If you flip a coin, in the air it can be considered a superposition of HT. It doesn't have a definite state until it lands, is observed.
Logged
 

guest4091

  • Guest
Re: How remiss is our attitude towards entropy?
« Reply #27 on: 11/01/2019 19:43:43 »
Bill S #24;

Quote
Doesn't this result in a reality that exists only in the mind?
---
Relativity has shown perception is reality confined to the mind.

Logged
 
The following users thanked this post: Zer0

Offline Bill S (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3631
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 110 times
    • View Profile
Re: How remiss is our attitude towards entropy?
« Reply #28 on: 23/01/2019 18:05:28 »
Quote from: Chiral
However, there are many examples of open systems with increasing entropy (like the cup of coffee on my desk into which the added cream is dispersing).

I’ve just noticed this, and find myself wondering about it.

Your cup of coffee constitutes an open system.  Heating it increased its entropy.  What happens to the entropy of this system when you add cream?

The temperature of the cream is raised, so its entropy increases, but this lowers the temperature of the coffee, decreasing its entropy.  Thus, the entropy of the “system” decreases.  (?)
Logged
There never was nothing.
 



Offline Bill S (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3631
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 110 times
    • View Profile
Re: How remiss is our attitude towards entropy?
« Reply #29 on: 24/08/2019 12:46:59 »
I guess that coffee is really cold by now. :)  I still see its entropy as decreasing, although the process of heating and cooling will have increased global entropy.  Comments?
Logged
There never was nothing.
 

Online Halc

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 2227
  • Activity:
    29%
  • Thanked: 185 times
    • View Profile
Re: How remiss is our attitude towards entropy?
« Reply #30 on: 24/08/2019 12:55:45 »
Quote from: Bill S on 23/01/2019 18:05:28
Your cup of coffee constitutes an open system.  Heating it increased its entropy. 
The hot coffee is capable of doing more work than was the cold coffee, therefore it seems that heating it reduced its entropy.
I know you've been defining entropy as disorder, but I don't know a way to quantize that.
Logged
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 28632
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 65 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How remiss is our attitude towards entropy?
« Reply #31 on: 24/08/2019 14:17:22 »
Yep Chiral, it has to be that way

" However, it also seems almost self-evident (*warning bells*) that the early universe must have been more ordered than it is now. "

the other direction would , actually, be pretty interesting :)

Damn.

why do you do this?
Make me think?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
 

Offline Bill S (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3631
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 110 times
    • View Profile
Re: How remiss is our attitude towards entropy?
« Reply #32 on: 25/08/2019 13:07:18 »
Quote from: Halc
The hot coffee is capable of doing more work than was the cold coffee, therefore it seems that heating it reduced its entropy.
I know you've been defining entropy as disorder, but I don't know a way to quantize that.

There was some “devil’s advocate” type posting in this thread, because I was trying to sort out my thoughts about the appropriateness, or otherwise, of equating entropy with order.

My current position is that I think the analogy, like analogies in general, fits where it touches.  Trying to extrapolate it beyond its useful limit serves only to obnubilate the issue
Logged
There never was nothing.
 



Offline Bill S (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3631
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 110 times
    • View Profile
Re: How remiss is our attitude towards entropy?
« Reply #33 on: 25/08/2019 13:16:28 »
Quote from: Bill
Doesn't this result in a reality that exists only in the mind?

Quote from: Phyti
Relativity has shown perception is reality confined to the mind.

I think it’s important to distinguish between perception that is confined to the mind, and reality that exists only in the mind.  The latter is a dubious path to follow.
Logged
There never was nothing.
 

Offline evan_au

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 9202
  • Activity:
    71.5%
  • Thanked: 922 times
    • View Profile
Re: How remiss is our attitude towards entropy?
« Reply #34 on: 07/09/2019 01:40:19 »
Quote from: AustinnEp
how ... does vacuum thin interstellar gas and dust come together to form planets?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk
Logged
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 733
  • Activity:
    6%
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: How remiss is our attitude towards entropy?
« Reply #35 on: 07/09/2019 18:31:17 »
From a cosmological perspective, the principle which says entropy always increases is just a belief, because it could only be a phase. The universe being in expansion implies that the quantity of information always increases as the total volume or surface, depending on which theory you are referring to. If there is a limit to the quantity of information, this means entropy cannot increase forever...
« Last Edit: 07/09/2019 18:33:29 by CPT ArkAngel »
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 

Similar topics (5)

Was the 'shape' of the universe @T=0 the shape with the lowest entropy possible?

Started by peppercornBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 8
Views: 5385
Last post 10/03/2011 21:13:28
by peppercorn
How to choose random walk, diffusion? (local vs global entropy maximization)

Started by Jarek DudaBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 0
Views: 336
Last post 03/09/2020 06:35:57
by Jarek Duda
String theory Entropy and the holographic scenario? Is this gravity?

Started by yor_onBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 14
Views: 8752
Last post 10/01/2016 15:00:11
by Spaskiba
Does an Average Increase in Entropy Explain Away a Local Decrease?

Started by namaanBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 18
Views: 6233
Last post 07/01/2012 09:43:50
by Soul Surfer
Sociophysics question - 2.3327 bits of entropy per individual

Started by Jarek DudaBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 5
Views: 3683
Last post 19/01/2013 16:05:28
by Jarek Duda
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.204 seconds with 73 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.