james blunt
Well-Known Member
Big peas when there are little people. I think you missed the point even big peas do not affect space.
It is evident you can't destroy space, we have tried enough in wars and failed.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What was the Big Bang
- Thread starter ThePainefulTruth
- Start date
It is evident you can't destroy space, we have tried enough in wars and failed.
Like i said. "not even firing peas."
Interesting you try to turn it to self.
And I'll ask again, what has this to do with god magic?
james blunt
Well-Known Member
Zero point pressure
james blunt
Well-Known Member
That because we think we are big but are not .
exchemist
Veteran Member
OK, gardening finished!
I can see you have been thinking a lot harder about all this than I have
. I suspect that, as an academic (as I see you are from your profile), you may have better access to real Stat. TD experts than I have, relying, as I have to, on forty year old recollections and textbooks. But I shall manfully try to understand what you are driving at.Just to check what assumptions we hold in common, I presume that the mathematics of probability is assumed to hold across the universe. So for example if we have a system that can either be in a state that can be realised in 2 ways, or one that can be realised in 4 ways, the latter is the more probable, other things being equal.
If that is a given then, very simplistically, it seems to me there will be an inherent tendency over time towards those states that can be realised in more ways, e.g. two gases diffusing into one another. I cannot see how this could ever not be so, if mathematical logic applies everywhere. In a hand-wavy way, that is my mental picture of why entropy can be said to be the arrowhead of time.
In the point about the effect of the composition of a substance affecting the entropy, let me retrace why (excuse me if I go slowly here - it's been quite a while). It would be, I think, because the atomic masses, bonding interactions etc will affect the partition function, Q, which represents the degree to which the atoms or molecules are able to escape the ground state and populate excited states. And we have the result that S=k lnQ + U/T. Does that sound right?
Where my grasp of what you are saying gets more shaky, I'm afraid, is in the point you want to make about a loss of information in "going from" the microstates to a macrostate. I understand we don't generally keep tabs on the continual flux among the microstates, all exchanging energy with one another in a bulk samples of a substance, and that knowledge of the bulk properties doesn't tell us about all that. Are you saying that if we did have all that information, the information entropy would be a lot lower, zero even?
OK, gardening finished!
I can see you have been thinking a lot harder about all this than I have
Just to check what assumptions we hold in common, I presume that the mathematics of probability is assumed to hold across the universe. So for example if we have a system that can either be in a state that can be realised in 2 ways, or one that can be realised in 4 ways, the latter is the more probable, other things being equal.
That assumes that each of the two (in the first case) or four (in the second case) are equally probable. This is a typical assumption in StatMech.
OK, but consider this. The basic forces of nature, the basic equations of physics, are identical if t is replaced by -t. In other words, the basic dynamics is time symmetric. Why should things naturally evolved in one particular time direction in all locations in a way that increases the number of equivalent microstates?
Yes, of course. There are two aspects that are problematic here. One is the definition of the partition function, which requires a complete list of the distinct 'species' allowed in the system. But, for example, do we distinguish between deuterium and regular hydrogen? Probably. We know of the difference between them. But could we, solely on entropy grounds, detect that there was a second type of hydrogen in our system that we didn't know about? No. All entropy calculations would work equally well if deuterium and hydrogen were not distinguishable.
Yes, actually. If we had a complete microscopic description, there would be no way to tell the arrow of time. The basic laws are time symmetric. We can't keep track of Avagadro's number of molecules, so we relay on statistics. If we could, then no statistics would be required and the entropy, which relies on a well-defined macrostate would be irrelevant. The statistical treatment in and of itself produces a loss of information: all that detailed knowledge of the positions, interactions, motions, etc of all the different molecules involved (as well as all their internal motions). That loss of information is *exactly* the k ln(W).
Evidence? Doesn't not zpp only occur at 0k? The average temperature of the universe 2.73k, so no god there.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
We are talking about space 0k, not the additives. The universe is not space.
Didn't think it would be long before you showed your ad hominem in a futile attempt to belittle the blonde rather than admit you have no evidence of god magic. How religiously honest of you. You must be really good at selling your faith ;-/
FYI, The universe it has dimensions and is therefore space
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Also, gravity warps space. You can't warp nothing.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Thanks for the insight into information and entropy. I've extracted the 2 paras of your latest which invite comment.
On the 1st, yes I realise that, at least in a classical, deterministic world, one should be able to calculate the evolution of a system and in principle each individual interaction between its members should be reversible. So, to take my very simple example of the diffusion of two gases into one another, if you were to model the process in terms of perfectly elastic collisions between the molecules and each other and with the walls of the containing vessel, each collision would be reversible. In theory, if you took the mixed gases at a particular instant and noted the momenta of all the molecules, you could put that into a computer simulation, with the sense of each vector reversed, and the simulation would show the gases "spontaneously" separating, like running a movie of the diffusion process backwards. Are you asking why that does not happen? I suppose, given your remarks about information loss, you would say that, if you knew all that, there would be no entropy change on mixing. Is that your point, i.e. how does the information get "lost" if, in a deterministic billiard ball universe, it should be retained by the system?
On the 2nd para, I should have thought we could tell the difference between hydrogen and deuterium on entropy grounds, as they have different atomic masses and so the spacing of their rotational and vibrational energy levels, ε, will be different, so then exp(-ε/kT) will be different, so Q will be different and hence S will be different. In principle, at least, not sure how practical a measurement would be.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
More specifically, why lost in one direction of time and not the other? Again, the basic laws don't make a distinction. They are time symmetric. So where, precisely, does the asymmetry come in?
Agreed. And perhaps this isn't the best example.
I'm attempting to address Loschmidt's paradox: Loschmidt's paradox - Wikipedia
And perhaps it is resolved by actually going to the Q function in all cases. I'll have to ponder that for a bit.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
Your hair colour has nothing to do with objective facts. People misinterpret what space is , a common problem that many of you are not even aware. Space is an unknown volume of nothingness, relative space time occupies nothingness.
It is in no way an attempt to belittle you, but I have to correct you if I know you have a misunderstanding about the semantics of a word.
Space = space
Universe = space and substance
exchemist
Veteran Member
Exactly! Loschmidt's paradox seems to be precisely what we have been discussing. I had not previously been aware of this. Thanks for the information.
In my previous reply I was studiously avoiding a quick leap into the safety net, by means of a hand-waving invocation of quantum uncertainty. But indeed, the question of which specific atoms or molecules are in exactly which excited states, of which of their various degrees of freedom, is governed by QM transition probabilities, i.e. is not deterministic. So calculating Q element by element, deterministically, could never be done (unless there are, after all, hidden variables that restore determinism). However if this is a genuine way out of Loschmidt's Paradox, the Wiki article does not refer to it as such. Although it seems to me that on the face of it it could be.
But tell me, have you not discussed this with colleagues in the Physics or Chemistry Depts at your institution?
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
We could use radioactive decay as a measure of time. In this case, the subatomic particles tunnel out of the nucleus with no movement. They are in the nucleus at one moment and outside the nucleus at the next moment. This is an inherently quantum event.