How I would love to know where that singularity came from , maybe it was really a zit on the anus of god or something!!
Just got popped and so we had the big bang and the universe was created!
PB
PeakOil is You
THE Laws of Thermodynamics Thread (merged)
by Permanently_Baffled » Sat 20 Nov 2004, 12:23:21
Thanks Smiley, I read some more of S.Hawkings 'Brief history of time' last night. That cleared it all up for me....
How I would love to know where that singularity came from , maybe it was really a zit on the anus of god or something!! Just got popped and so we had the big bang and the universe was created!
PB
How I would love to know where that singularity came from , maybe it was really a zit on the anus of god or something!!
Just got popped and so we had the big bang and the universe was created!
PB
-
Permanently_Baffled - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1151
- Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: England
by smiley » Sat 20 Nov 2004, 12:26:43
OK I'll try to explain it in laymans terms. But first let me reiterate that I do not object against the second law, I just question the way we interpret the concept of entropy.
Imagine an extremely large box, which is hermetically sealed; the ideal closed system. In that box is a gas, uniformly dispersed; the ultimate form of disorder.
Now imagine that in the box there is a tiny section with a larger density than the remainder of the box. Since the density is locally somewhat larger than the remainder of the gas that section is going to exert a gravitational pull on the gas around it. Gas starts flowing toward the density variation.
As more and more gas starts to be contained by the aberration the gravitational pull becomes stronger until all the gas has been absorbed and the gas will first liquefy and then crystallize. The content of the box has thus become ordered.
If you say that entropy equals disorder then the entropy should have lowered. But that can't be possible in a closed system. If we assume that the second law is correct (as I do) then we must get rid of the idea that entropy equal disorder.
Entropy itself does not distinguish between order and disorder. Whether a system will become ordered or disordered depends on the presence of interactions. When there are no interactions the system remains chaotic. However when you do have interactions (such as gravity), then the system can and will become statically or dynamically ordered. This is the basis of chaos theory.
Such events and such interactions are not rare, they are the norm. They are the reason why we can find so many ordered things on our planet and so little truly unordered things. Sometimes the scale of the order surpasses our imagination. For a lice walking on a carpet, it might seem a random bunch of colored fibers instead of a well-woven design. But the overwhelming majority of things we know is ordered.
Imagine an extremely large box, which is hermetically sealed; the ideal closed system. In that box is a gas, uniformly dispersed; the ultimate form of disorder.
Now imagine that in the box there is a tiny section with a larger density than the remainder of the box. Since the density is locally somewhat larger than the remainder of the gas that section is going to exert a gravitational pull on the gas around it. Gas starts flowing toward the density variation.
As more and more gas starts to be contained by the aberration the gravitational pull becomes stronger until all the gas has been absorbed and the gas will first liquefy and then crystallize. The content of the box has thus become ordered.
If you say that entropy equals disorder then the entropy should have lowered. But that can't be possible in a closed system. If we assume that the second law is correct (as I do) then we must get rid of the idea that entropy equal disorder.
Entropy itself does not distinguish between order and disorder. Whether a system will become ordered or disordered depends on the presence of interactions. When there are no interactions the system remains chaotic. However when you do have interactions (such as gravity), then the system can and will become statically or dynamically ordered. This is the basis of chaos theory.
Such events and such interactions are not rare, they are the norm. They are the reason why we can find so many ordered things on our planet and so little truly unordered things. Sometimes the scale of the order surpasses our imagination. For a lice walking on a carpet, it might seem a random bunch of colored fibers instead of a well-woven design. But the overwhelming majority of things we know is ordered.
-
smiley - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2274
- Joined: Fri 16 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Europe
by DefiledEngine » Sat 20 Nov 2004, 13:25:14
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Entropy itself does not distinguish between order and disorder. Whether a system will become ordered or disordered depends on the presence of interactions. When there are no interactions the system remains chaotic. However when you do have interactions (such as gravity), then the system can and will become statically or dynamically ordered. This is the basis of chaos theory.
Such events and such interactions are not rare, they are the norm. They are the reason why we can find so many ordered things on our planet and so little truly unordered things. Sometimes the scale of the order surpasses our imagination. For a lice walking on a carpet, it might seem a random bunch of colored fibers instead of a well-woven design. But the overwhelming majority of things we know is ordered.
')Entropy itself does not distinguish between order and disorder. Whether a system will become ordered or disordered depends on the presence of interactions. When there are no interactions the system remains chaotic. However when you do have interactions (such as gravity), then the system can and will become statically or dynamically ordered. This is the basis of chaos theory.
Such events and such interactions are not rare, they are the norm. They are the reason why we can find so many ordered things on our planet and so little truly unordered things. Sometimes the scale of the order surpasses our imagination. For a lice walking on a carpet, it might seem a random bunch of colored fibers instead of a well-woven design. But the overwhelming majority of things we know is ordered.
I have yet to see or hear ANY proof that gas ALWAYS spontanously forms solid crystals in closed systems. Care to bring proof?
Our world is NOT a closed system. It is something that constantly recieves energy to increase order. This is the whole order in randomness thing Chaos Theory speaks of. The norm? Hardly. Life can exist because it is an open system, trading stuff with its environment continously.
The basis of chaos theory is, as far as I know, that it is basically impossible to predict how things will move within a chaotic system. Gravity isn't really an issue, since the force is often quite neglible.
-
DefiledEngine - Lignite
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Thu 19 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
by RepubCarrier » Wed 24 Nov 2004, 06:06:26
how are those physicists doing on that "Theory of Everything", which was supposed to discover one unified force that was behind electric, magnetic, nuclear, and gravitational forces? i remember reading about it a few years ago, no idea what has become of this.... but I imagine that would have some relevant consequences for the world of energy
-
RepubCarrier - Wood
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri 19 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
by 0mar » Thu 25 Nov 2004, 06:31:27
AFAIK, ZPenergy doesn't break the second law. Particles come into being spontaneously at the expense of energy. They then break down extremely quickly (on the order of planck time 10^-43 seconds), releasing that borrowed energy.
Quantum theory is f'ed up. So glad I went into biology
Quantum theory is f'ed up. So glad I went into biology
-
0mar - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1499
- Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Davis, California
by MonteQuest » Thu 25 Nov 2004, 13:40:06
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DvidBrent', 'E')xactly,
The laws of tdym (couldnt be bothered to type out that word) are not laws but merely indications, or generalisations.
The worst "law" is the first.
Read this extract from alternative science to find the history of that "law" and how it came about.
http://www.alternativescience.com/perpetual_motion.htm
The laws of tdym (couldnt be bothered to type out that word) are not laws but merely indications, or generalisations.
The worst "law" is the first.
Read this extract from alternative science to find the history of that "law" and how it came about.
http://www.alternativescience.com/perpetual_motion.htm
You have got to be kidding. No one has ever proven them wrong. Here's Einstein's take on the laws of thermodynamics:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hermodynamics is the only physical theory of universal content which, within the framework of the applicability of its basic concepts, I am convinced will never be overthrown.” Albert Einstein
Last edited by MonteQuest on Tue 14 Dec 2004, 00:08:04, edited 1 time in total.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest - Expert
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
by pilferage » Mon 13 Dec 2004, 23:37:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'Y')ou have got to be kidding. No one has even proven them wrong.
Just because no one has proven them wrong so far doesn't mean they won't be proven wrong in the future. They're just extensions of mathematics used to describe our environment, and as such I don't think they can ever be proven to be consistent.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Consistency.html
IIRC most systems in math can't be proven consistent
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsInc ... eorem.html
and math is essentially something we've made up in our minds over the past god knows how long!
-
pilferage - Tar Sands
- Posts: 553
- Joined: Sun 21 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: ~170ft/lbs@0rpm (on my bike)
![[smilie=BangHead.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/BangHead.gif "BangHead")
