 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / March 2006Order / disorder
1) Consider the unit cube. There is a point like particle bouncing around inside the box like a billiard ball, but it does not neccesarily obey the laws of reflection when it bounces off walls. It's motion is highly unpredictable and it looks like it is random. The system, on whole, is probabilistic. Your only choice to model this system is statistics. 2) Consider the same cube but now add another point like particle so that there are now 2 particles in the box. The first one is still random, but the second particle will obey all of the laws of physics and regular billiards. One particle is random, and the other is deterministic. How much order is in this system compared to the system in example (1) ? 3) Consider the same cube and take away the randomized particle. You have a particle bouncing around which obeys all of the normal laws of physics and the whole system is deterministic. Sure, you could use probability to model this system, but if you wanted to you could exploit the fact that it's completely determined, and the system contains alot of order. What is the best way to model the different proportions of order and disorder in these systems as they compare to each other ? You could say that box 1 is %100 disordered box 2 is % 50 ordered, and %50 disordered box 3 is %100 ordered But is this really the best answer ? Is there a better answer ? | 1) Consider the unit cube. There is a point like particle bouncing | around inside the box like a billiard ball, but it does not neccesarily | obey the laws of reflection when it bounces off walls. It's motion is | highly unpredictable and it looks like it is random. The system, on | whole, is probabilistic. Your only choice to model this system is | statistics. The spinning black egg. | 2) Consider the same cube but now add another point like particle so | that there are now 2 particles in the box. The first one is still | random, but the second particle will obey all of the laws of physics | and regular billiards. The white perfect sphere. | One particle is random, and the other is deterministic. How much | order is in this system compared to the system in example (1) ? Determine where the white sphere will collide with the cube immediately following a collision with the black egg. | 3) Consider the same cube and take away the randomized particle. You | have a particle bouncing around which obeys all of the normal laws of | physics and the whole system is deterministic. Sure, you could use | probability to model this system, but if you wanted to you could | exploit the fact that it's completely determined, and the system | contains alot of order. What's an "alot"? | What is the best way to model the different proportions of order and | disorder in these systems as they compare to each other ? | You could say that | box 1 is %100 disordered | box 2 is % 50 ordered, and %50 disordered | box 3 is %100 ordered Nope. Box 2 is as disordered as box 1 Andocles. | But is this really the best answer ? Is there a better answer ? > | 1) Consider the unit cube. There is a point like particle bouncing > | around inside the box like a billiard ball, but it does not neccesarily [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The spinning black egg. > | 2) Consider the same cube but now add another point like particle so > | that there are now 2 particles in the box. The first one is still > | random, but the second particle will obey all of the laws of physics > | and regular billiards. > > The white perfect sphere. > | One particle is random, and the other is deterministic. How much > | order is in this system compared to the system in example (1) ? > > Determine where the white sphere will collide with the cube immediately > following a collision with the black egg. Precise part of the problem, by design. But, once you have a collision, the trajectory is determined until the next collision. Another wierd thing is that when black egg collides with white sphere, white sphere will obey vector physics but black egg is not required to. > | 3) Consider the same cube and take away the randomized particle. You > | have a particle bouncing around which obeys all of the normal laws of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What's an "alot"? Well, case (3) seems %100 determined. Even though I believe that absolute order is trivial and cannot exist, I would say that case (3) is maximally ordered, basically %order = lim->%100. > | What is the best way to model the different proportions of order and > | disorder in these systems as they compare to each other ? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Andocles. OK then, lets look at box #4. 4) Consider the same unit cube and let there be 1 random particle, and 1,000,000 well behaved particles. Is this box equally disordered to box (1) ? I dont think so. It is as deterministic as box (3) ? Cant be. > | But is this really the best answer ? Is there a better answer ? | > | 1) Consider the unit cube. There is a point like particle bouncing | > | around inside the box like a billiard ball, but it does not neccesarily [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] | Precise part of the problem, by design. But, once you have a collision, | the trajectory is determined until the next collision. So? | Another wierd thing is that when black egg collides with white sphere, | white sphere will obey vector physics but black egg is not required t Nope. Your problem is in predicting, but AFTER the collision the path of the black egg can be calculated from the path of the white sphere. The path the black egg will take is completely determined by the law of conservation of momentum. | > | 3) Consider the same cube and take away the randomized particle. You | > | have a particle bouncing around which obeys all of the normal laws of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | absolute order is trivial and cannot exist, I would say that case (3) | is maximally ordered, basically %order = lim->%100. But what is an "alot"? It's not a word I'm familiar with and doesn't appear in my dictionary. | > | What is the best way to model the different proportions of order and | > | disorder in these systems as they compare to each other ? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] | 1,000,000 well behaved particles. Is this box equally disordered to box | (1) ? I dont think so. One bad apple rots the whole bunch. That was discovered many years ago by experiment and the phrase has remained with us ever since. http://www.botany.org/bsa/misc/mcintosh/badapple.html "Plants use hormones to communicate among tissues. " There is your random particle. You can't have it both ways. If the particle is random then it is not determined. If it is determined then it is not random. Androcles. | It is as deterministic as box (3) ? Cant be. | > | But is this really the best answer ? Is there a better answer ? > You could say that > box 1 is %100 disordered > box 2 is % 50 ordered, and %50 disordered > box 3 is %100 ordered > > But is this really the best answer ? Is there a better answer ? You wouldn't normally apply a concept of Thermodynamics to systems consisting just of 1 or 2 particles. If you have many particles in the box, then you could say that the particles are disordered (unless you somehow order them) but it seems to make little sense for your example. Note that this has however not necessarily something to to with the system being 'deterministic' or not. From the viewpoint of classical mechanics, the state of the box is at any instant completely deterministic (even a 'random' state is not truly random but merely in a practical sense; the 'random' reflections of your particle could be traced back for instance to the roughness of the reflecting wall which in principle could be exactly modelled i.e. the reflection could be predicted). Thomas There's something going on here. Hexenmaiseter clamis that "one bad apple spoils the whoel bunch". And while that may be true, there is still a big difference between one rotten apple in a bushel of good ones, and a whole bushel of rotten apples. The analogy would suggest that there is good, and bad, and nothing in between. I just aint so. What Hexenmeister did say was right on the mark, however, regarding conservation of momentum. Consider the black egg and the perfect white sphere. The white spheres always obey vector addition, but the black eggs are not required to. You can still conserve momentum if you are working in two dimensions. But if we are talking about 1 dimensional billiards, then conservation of momentum would be violated by the black egg. The point is that even if the black eggs dont obey vector addition, they can still conserve momentum, but only in 2D and higher. In 1D, conservation of momentum is all that's left and so conservation would have to be violated. What Tom said about particles being random - all I can say is that there are undeveloped relationships between some of these things. I agree with what you said, but consider - Lack of information does not imply randomness. However, If information is absolutely inaccesible to us because it is unobservable, then this may in fact imply disorder or randomness. There is a difference between not knowing information, and not being able to know it. - And just look at the double slit exp. Something really weird is going on here, and the whole thing has to do with order, observability, and relative scales (IMO). I dont think that the strict dichotomy of randomness / determinism is helpful at all. You need an order/disorder continuum. And I think that it would lead to an explaination of why which way information phenomena occur, or would give a better explanation that what's currently available. So, how do you demonstrate which way info for under $5 ? Any tips on how to do this in a basement or garage ? | There's something going on here. | [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | apples. The analogy would suggest that there is good, and bad, and | nothing in between. I just aint so. Time passes, apples rot. One bad apple will accelerate the others. The analogy was that your box will become indeterminate with the introduction of one random particle. Entropy in action. <shrug> You might want to consider this: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~mcc/chaos_new/Lorenz.html Change the initial conditions at your whim. | What Hexenmeister did say was right on the mark, however, regarding | conservation of momentum. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | But if we are talking about 1 dimensional billiards, then conservation | of momentum would be violated by the black egg. That is simply silly. You have declared a physical law violated. Come back when you have some sense. Androcles. | The point is that even if the black eggs dont obey vector addition, | they can still conserve momentum, but only in 2D and higher. In 1D, [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] | So, how do you demonstrate which way info for under $5 ? Any tips on | how to do this in a basement or garage ? > | There's something going on here. > | [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > http://www.its.caltech.edu/~mcc/chaos_new/Lorenz.html > Change the initial conditions at your whim. In a box with perfect white balls, everything is reversible even if it's chaotic. You definately dont have reversibility in a box with even a single black egg. But the fewer black eggs you have, the more reversible things will be, chaos or not. > | What Hexenmeister did say was right on the mark, however, regarding > | conservation of momentum. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Come back when you have some sense. > Androcles. You're right. It would be silly if you allowed it, but conservation wont allow it, so something must vanish, and that explains why which way information destroys interference. You split a photon (which cant be done), and the >energy< appears to take both paths, until you get your information, nature wont let you know which way because retrieving information would violate conservation. I'm smelling a possible solution. > | The point is that even if the black eggs dont obey vector addition, > | they can still conserve momentum, but only in 2D and higher. In 1D, [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > | So, how do you demonstrate which way info for under $5 ? Any tips on > | how to do this in a basement or garage ? | > | There's something going on here. | > | [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] | But the fewer black eggs you have, the more reversible things will be, | chaos or not. Yawn... Androcles. | > | What Hexenmeister did say was right on the mark, however, regarding | > | conservation of momentum. [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] | > | So, how do you demonstrate which way info for under $5 ? Any tips on | > | how to do this in a basement or garage ? > | > | There's something going on here. > | > | [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Androcles. You have 1 black egg and 1,000,000 white spheres. This system is fairly reversible. Now you have 500,000 black and 500,000 white. Much less reversible than before. Now let it be 1,000,000 black eggs and 1 white sphere. It's not really reversible at all any more. And you dont see any reason why one might want to put a number on this ? Knowing that Hawking claims that the universe is NOT deterministic, (for other reasons), this should at least make one wonder about order - at least a little - especially when we observe order & disorder everywhere in nature. I do not think that I'm reinventing entropy the hard way. > | > | What Hexenmeister did say was right on the mark, however, regarding > | > | conservation of momentum. [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > | > | So, how do you demonstrate which way info for under $5 ? Any tips on > | > | how to do this in a basement or garage ? > > | > | There's something going on here. > > | > | [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > I do not think that I'm reinventing entropy the hard way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_mechanics The fundamental postulate in statistical mechanics (also known as the equal a priori probability postulate) is the following: "Given an isolated system in equilibrium, it is found with equal probability in each of its accessible microstates. " This is really quite different than what I'm saying, although the result will probably be equivalent or possibly more general. If I could rewite this thing, I would probably scribble something like this - "Given an isolated system, not neccesarily in equillibrium, the total order of the system at any instant is equal to the probability integral of interactions that are deterministic." OK - I just made that up, but it's close to what I'm thinking. Statistical mechanics is based on random variables which have nonvariable randomness. It's so, ....well.....Victorian. > > > | > | There's something going on here. > > > | > | [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > Statistical mechanics is based on random variables which have nonvariable > randomness. It's so, ....well.....Victorian. Here's an interesting concept to compare - ---------------------------------- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#Entropy_change_in_heat_engines Many quantities of matter tend to equalize their thermodynamic parameters - reducing differentials towards zero. Pressure differences, density differences, and temperature differences, all tend towards equalizing. Entropy is a measure of how far along this process of equalization has come. Entropy increases as this equalization process advances. For example, the combined entropy of "a cup of hot water in a cool room" is less than the entropy of "the room and the water after it has cooled (and warmed the room slightly)," because the heat is more evenly distributed. The entropy of the room and the empty cup after the water has evaporated is even higher. (Note that it is important to distinguish the definition of disorder in the context of entropy and the definition of disorder in the context of everyday usage. In physics, the term "disorder" in this sense refers to a specific, well-defined quantity, while disorder in everyday usage is more akin to disorganization. A more thorough exploration of this concept can be found below). As stated above, when discussing entropy, the term disorder does not necessarily mean disorganization. Many textbooks utilize a bedroom as an example of a hypothetical system in which disorganization is spontaneously increasing, and those textbooks say this is an example of entropy. A statement like this must be carefully made or else it can be misleading. ---------------------------------- Judging from this explanation, I would say that I am definately not trying to reinvent entropy. These entropy derivations look alot more like some type of mixing problems. Not really "disorder" in the sense of partial randomness. I'm specifically trying to construct partial randomness on macro or micro scales, and quantify it as such. > > > > | > | There's something going on here. > > > > | > | [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > > > | > with the introduction of one random particle. > > > > | > Entropy in action. <shrug> $$ $$ $$ $$ ENTROPY ..out of action. $$ $$ $$ $$ ENTROPY ..for MOST intent and purpose, is the WORK DONE. -=-SNiP-=- > > > > | In a box with perfect white balls, everything is reversible > > > > | even if it's chaotic. You definately dont have reversibility [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > > > > > I do not think that I'm reinventing entropy the hard way. $$ ENTROPY ..out of action. $$ ENTROPY ..for MOST intent and purpose, is the WORK DONE. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_mechanics > > The fundamental postulate in statistical mechanics (also known [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Statistical mechanics is based on random variables which have > > nonvariable randomness. It's so, ....well.....Victorian. -=-SNiP-=- > Many quantities of matter tend to equalize their thermodynamic > parameters - reducing differentials towards zero. Pressure > differences, density differences, and temperature differences, > all tend towards equalizing. > Entropy is a measure of how far along this process of > equalization has come. $$ ENTROPY ..out of action. $$ ENTROPY ..for MOST intent and purpose, is the WORK DONE. > Entropy increases as this equalization process advances. $$ ENTROPY ..out of action. $$ ENTROPY ..for MOST intent and purpose, is the WORK DONE. > For example, the combined entropy of "a cup of hot water in a > cool room" is less than the entropy of "the room and the water > after it has cooled (and warmed the room slightly)," because > the heat is more evenly distributed. $$ ENTROPY ..out of action. $$ ENTROPY ..for MOST intent and purpose, is the WORK DONE. > The entropy of the room and the empty cup after the water has > evaporated is even higher. $$ ENTROPY ..out of action. $$ ENTROPY ..for MOST intent and purpose, is the WORK DONE. > (Note that it is important to distinguish the definition of > disorder in the context of entropy and the definition of > disorder in the context of everyday usage. $$ ENTROPY ..out of action. $$ ENTROPY ..for MOST intent and purpose, is the WORK DONE. > In physics, the term "disorder" in this sense refers to a > specific, > well-defined quantity, while disorder in everyday > usage is more akin to disorganization. A more thorough > exploration of this concept can be found below). > > As stated above, when discussing entropy, -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- $$ ENTROPY ..out of action. $$ ENTROPY ..for MOST intent and purpose, is the WORK DONE. > -=- the term disorder does not necessarily mean disorganization. > Many textbooks utilize a bedroom as an example of a hypothetical > system in which disorganization is spontaneously increasing, and > those textbooks say this is an example of entropy. $$ ENTROPY ..out of action. $$ ENTROPY ..for MOST intent and purpose, is the WORK DONE. > A > statement like this must be carefully made or else it can be > misleading. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > not trying to reinvent entropy. These entropy derivations look > alot more like some type of mixing problems. -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- $$ ENTROPY ..out of action. $$ ENTROPY ..for MOST intent and purpose, is the WORK DONE. > -=- Not really "disorder" in the sense of partial randomness. > > I'm specifically trying to construct partial randomness on macro > or micro scales, and quantify it as such. $$ Ra*L Ra (h + 2*hbar) Planck Tp (Rb + 4) $$ ENTROPY [S] = ---- = -- = -- --- -- -- = -- --- -- = -- -- -- . $$ eK Cg Cg*hbar Ni*Cg Cg $$ Where:.. $$ Cg is general COMPLEXiTY. ; hbar = Dirac's constant h/2*pi. $$ L = (E - eG) = LaGrangian. ; eK = KiNETiC energy = L + eV. $$ h is Planck's constant. ; Ra = Na*k, ..MOLAR constant. $$ Tp is PLANCK Temperature. ; Rb is 2*(pi - 1) = (Ra - 4). $$ Volt*Amp*sec energy = + eV ..OR.. - (m1*v1^2/2), exclusively. $$ NET enthalpy canNOT be BOTH increased AND decreased, at ONCE. Re: Entropy=Ra*L/eK=Ra/Cg=(h+2*hbar)/Cg*hbar=Planck Tp/Ni*Cg. Re: Entropy ..for MOST intent & purpose is the WORK DONE. Re: Entropy ..out of action. ..end of POST. | > | > | There's something going on here. | > | > | [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] | You have 1 black egg and 1,000,000 white spheres. This system is fairly | reversible. I have some news for you. Neither white, red or black billiard balls jump out of the pockets and form up into a neat equilateral triangle by themselves, but if you think they can please see a psychiatrist. Deterministic does not mean reversible. Androcles. | Now you have 500,000 black and 500,000 white. Much less reversible than | before. | Now let it be 1,000,000 black eggs and 1 white sphere. It's not really | reversible at all any more. [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] | > | > | So, how do you demonstrate which way info for under $5 ? Any tips on | > | > | how to do this in a basement or garage ? | > | > | There's something going on here. | > | > | [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] | You have 1 black egg and 1,000,000 white spheres. This system is fairly | reversible. I have some news for you. Neither white, red or black billiard balls jump out of the pockets and form up into a neat equilateral triangle on the centreline of the table by themselves. Within your hypothetical (and presumably weightless) cube the billard equivalent is a tetrahedron of spheres located at the centre. Upon break, the reflection of each ball at the walls is determined and can be predicted, but the probability of them reforming a tetrahedron with a single cue ball flying away is negligible. It is not "fairly" or even unfairly reversible. Energy enters the system to start the process (or the tetrahedron remains undisturbed) and the energy is dissipated among the balls. This is what entropy is about. Contrary to popular belief in these newsgroups, science is about discovery of Nature, trying to understand how it works, not the invention of Nature. If you wish you can create a mathematical model where your reversibility happens, but understand that your model is perfect but Nature is statistical. Newton's cradle is deterministic and reversible but there are constraints on the motion that are not present in Nature. This is the mathematic model: http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph11e/ncradle.htm This is reality: http://tinyurl.com/ksfqb The math model does not show two strings attached to each ball, and nor does it need to to convey the concept of conservation of energy. But ALL mathematical models miss some of the information. Aircraft are designed to fly, but still crash. Whether that is by human error, metal fatigue, wind shear or deliberate act by some lunatic bomber, there are factors which cannot be included in the mathematical design of aircraft. Deterministic does not mean reversible. Androcles. | Now you have 500,000 black and 500,000 white. Much less reversible than | before. | Now let it be 1,000,000 black eggs and 1 white sphere. It's not really | reversible at all any more. [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] | > | > | So, how do you demonstrate which way info for under $5 ? Any tips on | > | > | how to do this in a basement or garage ? > | > | > | There's something going on here. > | > | > | [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > Androcles. All I'm saying is that the amount of order is proportional to the ratio of black eggs to white spheres. And the way that we manufacture the black eggs is by taking a white sphere and declaring part of it to be unobservable. Not just unobserved, but absolutely unobservable. <snip> Have you read E.T. Jaynes' two papers "Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics", Phys Rev 106 (1957) p 620 and vol 108 (1957) p 171? They are exeptionally well-written.  SignatureAndrew Resnick, Ph.D. Department of Physiology and Biophysics Case Western Reserve University I looked on PROLA but could not locate. Do you know which volume it's in ? A,B,C,D,E.... etc ? OK - found it. I'm not an APS member so I could'nt get the whole articles, but the abstracts look pretty good. Found a couple gems - "A principle of "statistical complementarity" is pointed out, according to which the empirically verifiable probabilities of statistical mechanics necessarily correspond to incomplete predictions." and "Information theory provides a constructive criterion for setting up probability distributions on the basis of partial knowledge, and leads to a type of statistical inference which is called the maximum-entropy estimate." But, it's unclear to me _why_ the information is incomplete from this. I'm not sure what Jaynes meant by "incomplete information". >From what I understand about stat. mech., the amount of information contained in all of the microstates is so enormous that it is absolutely impractical to attempt to compute using that data, so we consider macrostates, and I think that this is where the information is getting lost in his treatment. Theoretically, this information still exists. Even if we are unable to use it, it is still present. The information loss I'm after is more similar to Hawking's information loss into a black hole. I'm not sure if Hawking considers such information noexistent, or perhaps relatively nonexistent, I'm not sure. I'm after information loss which is lost by restricting observability of dimension, so that there is a sub-Planck scale which "appears" nonexistent. So, if you wanted pi Planck lengths, what you get back is 3 and the remainder (pi - 3) is simply gone. It "appears" nonexistent. The information exists in an absolute sense, but from our point of view the information is completely lost - it "acts like" it does not exist. I gotta figure out how to get access to PROLA. If information exists but is unobserved, then you have a very watered down type of acausality. If information is nonexistent from the perspective of physics, then you have a very real form of disorder. By nonexistent what I mean is that it exists in an absolute sense but nature wont allow you to observe it. It "looks and acts" like it's nonexistent. You have a direct link between scale<=>order<=>information. I have no idea how to formalize it properly. | > | > | > | There's something going on here. | > | > | > | [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] | All I'm saying is that the amount of order is proportional to the ratio of | black eggs to white spheres. You haven't defined "amount of order", or even "order". Does it mean "order in court", which means pay atttention to the proceedings, a soldier's orders given by his commanding officer, the sequence 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,7 is "out of order", what? | And the way that we manufacture the black eggs is by taking a white sphere | and declaring part of it to be unobservable. Not just unobserved, but | absolutely unobservable. You cannot obsere the inside of a billiard ball, and there is more of that than surface. I order to understand what you are talking about you need to define the terms you are using or you are out of order. Androcles. > | > | > | > | There's something going on here. > | > | > | > | [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > to the proceedings, a soldier's orders given by his commanding > officer, the sequence 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,7 is "out of order", what? What I'm trying to understand is partial randomness. It will be a tough thing for most people to swallow, unless you can convince them that absolute disorder is trivial. Consider a unit square. This is a pretty orderly thing. Now let a few of the points be included or excluded at random. It has less order then before. Now let half the points be flipping on and off at random. Now let the whole thing be a collection of randomized on's and off's.All of these cases are distinct. Unless you want to argue that they are all the same ? > | And the way that we manufacture the black eggs is by taking a white sphere > | and declaring part of it to be unobservable. Not just unobserved, but [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Androcles. : ) I'll hang a sign around my neck "Out Of Order", and then I'll go around shortchanging everybody. : ) <snip> > I dont think that the strict dichotomy of randomness / determinism is > helpful at all. You need an order/disorder continuum. <snip> Google "order parameter". The order parameter may change continuously or discontinuously. SignatureAndrew Resnick, Ph.D. Department of Physiology and Biophysics Case Western Reserve University > > I dont think that the strict dichotomy of randomness / determinism is > > helpful at all. You need an order/disorder continuum. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Department of Physiology and Biophysics > Case Western Reserve University Wow - some very deep stuff, and it looks like this is exactly the idea I was looking for. But I cant find much math. Mostly physics related sources. It's gotta be something that makes the math folks scratch their heads. Thanks for that!! Here's an interesting link - ----------------------------------------- http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/notebooks/dissipative-structures.html Dissipative structures 28 Jan 1997 13:34 Ilya Prigogine (NL) coined the phrase, as a name for the patterns which self-organize in far-from-equilibrium dissipative systems. He thinks they're unbelievably important, and says so at great length in his books. Some of us physicists believe him; some are skeptical; I am leaning towards skepticism. But to explain. Dissipation inspires the wrath of the moralist and the envy of most others; for the physicist, however, it is merely faintly depressing. We call something dissipative if it looses energy to waste-heat. (Technically: if volume in the phase space is not conserved.) The famous Second Law of Thermodynamics amounts to saying that, if something is isolated from the rest of the world, it will dissipate all the free energy it has. Equivalently, it maximizes its entropy. Thermal equilibrium is the state of maximum entropy. ----------------------------------------- I think that the guy has the right idea, but the math crowd is no doubt looking for a rock solid foundation for partial randomness. I will research the hell out of this and I really appreciate the feedback. There is a really good reason to be interested: Disorder in 2 dimensions or higher does not neccesarily break conservation o f momentum, but disorder in 1D must be breaking conservation of momentum. I think that this is extremely interesting, especially if you consider which way information. Hi RadicalLibertarian, Re: Your examples, Don't say they're ordered or disordered, just say they're known or unknown a priori. Nothing is intrinsically random, just unknown, given current-best observations/theories. For example: The spin of the earth and it's path around the sun are well known, a priori, but, until it's measured, the spin of a photon and its path are unknown. GR tells us that time is intrinsically spatial, it's only unknowns that make it seem directional. If you're thinking of entropy... Keep in mind that it's a measure of dissipation, an _Ideal_ vacuum has infinite entropy, while an _Ideal_ black hole has no entropy. Speaking of entropy... The redshift tells us how fast a standard candle is moving away from us, and the intensity tells us how far away it is... in _Both_ time and space. Combine those two, using 10 meter wide telescopes and a 340-million pixel MegaCam to find lots of them, preferably 12+ billion years old, and you'll find that, within a 10 percent error, GR's lambda is _Constant_. And that's just SNLS' preliminary data, released November 22, ...the accuracy is going to get much, much higher. WMAP's March 17th data pins down the value of GR's cosmological _Constant_ to +- 5 percent and shows that polerizations come only from dissipations, not, absurdly, from the massive gravity waves of an entire cosmos instantly popping into existence... sheesh, talk about science fiction. The 5D shape of the cosmos, Space_Time_Entropy, can be imagined as a 2D hyperbola or a 3D horn with an infinitely long mouthpiece and flange. Because the cosmos has no center of gravity, it's 4D shape, Space_Time, -- not just Space --, is flat, like a straight 2D line. Disappointing his many sci-fi fans, Hawking boldly said: In relativity, there is no real distinction between the space and time coordinates, just as there is no difference between two space coordinates. ... In summary, the title of this essay was a question: Is_Everything_Determined ? The answer is yes, it is. But it might as well not be, because we can never know what is determined. ... Thus the total path integral is unitary and information is not lost in the formation and evaporation of black holes. The way the information gets out seems to be that a true event horizon never forms, just an apparent horizon. Einstein wrote: But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. ... People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. > Hi RadicalLibertarian, Re: Your examples, > > Don't say they're ordered or disordered, > just say they're known or unknown a priori. I'll back up just a little. Physics and math disconnect when you get to the subject of making observations. This is where partial randomness comes in. Observability is restricted. If you could observe all scales from -infinity to + infinity then the universe would be composed entirely of perfect white spheres. But because observability of dimension is restricted, so is observability of space, and you have the formation of the little black eggs. Now, you can change a white sphere into a black egg by altering the scale that you are observing, but conservation across scales makes this very difficult, thereby preserving conservation of energy. > Nothing is intrinsically random, > just unknown, given current-best observations/theories. [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > The answer is yes, it is. > But it might as well not be, because we can never know what is determined. Bzzzzzzt - maybe he did say that, but he's got some other things posted on his site now. Determinism is FINITO. > Thus the total path integral is unitary > and information is not lost in the formation and evaporation of black holes. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the distinction between past, present, and future is > only a stubbornly persistent illusion. Guys - The concept of order parameter is really not what I'm after. After studying the context of how that term is being used, it does not provide any insights into partial randomness. Just to recap, this is the motivation for having an order-disorder continuum in the first place : We model the act of making a physical observation where observability is restricted. So, if you had a million billiard balls bouncing around on a large surface, you are only allowed to observe what is in the spotlight. That which is in the spotlight appears to exist, and that which is outside the spotlight appears nonexistent. The balls which are on the boundary are therefore only partially causal, and so they are partially random and they are partially determined. The system as a whole is partially random. OK - now, in reality, the spotlight is basically all of physics, and the boundary is caused by extreme scales. But we want to keep it simple, so we'll talk about the white spheres and the black eggs. . My money says that this is going to get us closer to explaining why which way information phenomena exist. There is a fine line between not knowing some information, and not being allowed to know it. Restricting observability allows us to create a very rigorous relationship between order, information, and substance. I'll write more later - Chaitin's got a book out where he discusses partial randomness and I have GOT to get a copy. Peace. Hi RadicalLibertarian, There is no, order-disorder continuum, as you call it. There's just entropy as an intrinsic propery of mass-energy. The cosmos has just always been, and always will be dissipating. SNLS' and WMAP's data are hard, and only getting harder. We now know, with great precision, what GR's cosmological _Constant_ is. To understand cosmology and particle phsyics, you must first realize: Nothing is intrinsically random, just unknown, given current-best observations/theories. For example: The spin of the earth and it's path around the sun are well known, a priori; but, until it's measured, the spin of a photon and its path are unknown. GR tells us that time is intrinsically _Spatial_, it's only unknowns that make it seem directional. You wrote: the boundary is caused by extreme scales. But we want to keep it simple, so we'll talk about the white spheres and the black eggs. No, scale is a very secondary issue, the main issue is what's known a priori. Your white spheres and the black eggs indicate that you're drinking too much caffine, more than anything else. Sober up... and you'll pass the science fiction, best theory barrier. You wrote: There is a fine line between not knowing some information, and not being allowed to know it. Einstein got the Nobel prize for removing doubt about the existence of photons and atoms, ...today's unknows might very well become tomorrows knowns. Just because our best theories... today... don't allow us to understand the inner details of _Ideal_ vacuums that says nothing about what tomorrow's best theories/observations might allow. Determinism, -- a.k.a. physicalism --, has never been so alive and well. Physical processes are sure to determine absolutely everything. > Hi RadicalLibertarian, There is no, order-disorder continuum, as you call it. > There's just entropy as an intrinsic propery of mass-energy. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The spin of the earth and it's path around the sun are well known, a priori; > but, until it's measured, the spin of a photon and its path are unknown. There are lots of unknowns, and yet there is plenty of order. There are folks who have no knowledge whatsoever about the stock market, but there's an awful lot of order in that dynamic, you can bet on it. > GR tells us that time is intrinsically _Spatial_, > it's only unknowns that make it seem directional. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No, scale is a very secondary issue, > the main issue is what's known a priori. Scale is fundamental. Just like length and time. > Your white spheres and the black eggs indicate > that you're drinking too much caffine, more than anything else. > Sober up... and you'll pass the science fiction, best theory barrier. That was funny. You're OK in my book Jeff, I dont even care what everybody else says. > You wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Determinism, -- a.k.a. physicalism --, has never been so alive and well. > Physical processes are sure to determine absolutely everything. Well, some people simply will never accept the idea that the universe is anything other than somehow deterministic. I think that it's one of the defining questions of our time, because we are aquiring the tools to build real answers which are not based on the Bible. I too had always pretty much believed that it was determined, but I no longer believe that. I believe that there are lots of white spheres, but there are also some black eggs out there. And - "IF" we can use these ideas to explain which way information, then you'll have evidence that the black eggs do exist, and further, that which way information phnomena could not occur without them. In other words, if Planck scale is an absolute bottom, then which way phenomena should not occur. It may sound like some great sci-fi, but it all comes from just one idea - observability of length &/or time is restricted. You make a mathematical model which models the act of making a physical observation. Partial causality, partial randomness, chaos - that's the result. It's an illusion. Hi RadicalLibertarian, You concluded: It may sound like some great sci-fi, but it all comes from just one idea - observability of length &/or time is restricted. You make a mathematical model which models the act of making a physical observation. Partial causality, partial randomness, chaos - that's the result. It's an illusion. Because of unknowns, and only unknowns, life seems like a casino to us, where we can only win in the short-term. Whether life or gavity, winning is defined as consuming, glomming on. Fast or slow, it's well known that all eventually dissipates... even gravity. Observable or not, Einstein, Hawking, I and many others will tell you that physical processes determine absolutely everything. No matter that the immediate future is often unknown, the long-term future is well known. GR tells us that time and entropy are sure to be intrinsically spatial. > Hi RadicalLibertarian, You concluded: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Because of unknowns, and only unknowns, life seems like a casino to us, > where we can only win in the short-term. Dont equate lack of knowledge with lack of order. Randomness is an intrinsic property of a dynamic, independent of whether anyone has knowledge or not. Casinos exploit the fact that lack of knowledge can mimic lack of order, but there is absolutely no way that you can shuffle a deck of cards without introdyucing some order into the act of shuffling. The shuffle itself is a very well defined rule. You place a rule on the deck, and you call it random ? Nonsense. > Whether life or gavity, winning is defined as consuming, glomming on. > Fast or slow, it's well known that all eventually dissipates... even gravity. > > Observable or not, Einstein, Hawking, I and many others will tell you > that physical processes determine absolutely everything. The only way that events become absolutely determined is when scale prevents you from effecting a change. You can swerve your car to miss a tree when you are still 5 miles away from it, but it you are doing 80 miles per hour and your car is 6 inches from impact, there is pretty much nothing that will stop you from slamming the car. So, scale does have an effect on determinism and causality. > No matter that the immediate future is often unknown, > the long-term future is well known. > GR tells us that time and entropy are sure to be intrinsically spatial. The universe is not predetermined. I posted a link and a passage from Hawking's own lips which is on his site in his lectures. Entropy has little to do with the question. You are asked to understand how randomness and determinism could coexist. How to mix togerther causality and acausality. How to cook up some partial randomness, or some partial causality. The answer is elsewhere in this thread - you simply model the act of making a physical observation where observability is restricted, and you have baked your blackenned eggs. Hi RadicalLibertarian, You concluded: You are asked to understand how randomness and determinism could coexist. Very simple, explicitly known or not, the order is sure to be there. Although the above is a theory, it's one I have _Full_ confidence in. As Hawking said, everything is predetermined; however, sometimes it's unknown. Much is known about the future, e.g. fast or slow, all eventually dissipates. You _Know_ the house will win in the end. > You _Know_ the house will win in the end. Prove_it_or_shut_up What_is_win? When_is_the_end? Who_is_the_house? Hi T_Wake, Like everyone else, you too _Know_ the house will win in the end, only, in your case, you're too drunk to give a sh.t. You're a passenger in the boat of life... not sober enough to be a pilot. > Hi T_Wake, Like everyone else, you too _Know_ the house will win in the > end, > only, in your case, you're too drunk to give a sh.t. More pointless mewlings. You can wax lyrical as much as you like. Your relevance to science exists only in your head. You like to have this little analogy because it validates your failings and gives a metaphysical reason for why life is treating you so badly. Oddly, you dont even know who the house is or when the end is. Strange that you use this analogy. > You're a passenger in the boat of life... not sober enough to be a pilot. Odd phrase. You are under the mistaken impression I care about your twee little analogies. Sadly, this post simply identifies your inabilities to answer the questions. > Hi RadicalLibertarian, You concluded: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > the long-term future is well known. > GR tells us that time and entropy are sure to be intrinsically spatial. I have just realised, other than waxing lyrical about your social life you only have four sentences to make regarding physics and you feel the need to post a permutation of them every few hours. Amazing. Learn something new. > > Hi RadicalLibertarian, You concluded: > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Learn something new. He forgot to quotemine something from wikipedia that is only tangentially related to the topic at hand. >> > Hi RadicalLibertarian, You concluded: >> > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > He forgot to quotemine something from wikipedia that is only > tangentially related to the topic at hand. Aha yes - I had missed that "defining" characteristic of Relf-ish posts. (That along with some borderline child abuse tale about how some "hot" 18 year old thinks he is great). Maybe little Jeffy is saving the Wiki quotes for another post - he may have a ration for the number of common elements he can use per post. | Guys - | [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] | | Peace. One mans obvious is another mans giant leap of faith. If you can't see the forest for the trees watch the squirrels instead.You may discover how forests are planted. Androcles. 29030332 > | Guys - > | [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Androcles. > 29030332 I think that the assumption has always been that "If it exists, physics will find it". This is pretty much the approach that we take toward the existence of Gods, devils, angels, ghosts, etc. We also assume the converse. That "If physics cant find it, then it just dont exist". This has been the primary undercurrent of scientific thought for over 300 years. Consider that there may be scaels from - infinity all the way up to + infinity, but that because of curvature or some other liniting process we can only observe a finite subset of those scales. Physics is just a window on a portion of reality. What I'd like to talk about is that it seems that if you have a motion in 1 dimension, then any disorder along the length of that motion is violating conservation of energy. I should clarify that statement. You have a 1 dimensional game of billiards, all perfect white spheres. Sphere A collides with sphere B. F=ma, and B has an equal and opposite reaction. Everything is happening in a stright pipe - like a 1 dimensional oscillator. If B exhibits disorder in it's motion, then it is violating F=ma, and violating conservation of energy. Contrast this to the fact that in 2D, these balls do NOT need to obey the usual vector math and they can STILL conserve energy, even though their angle of reflection can be completely random. You can still conserve energy in this scenario. Now, when you've split a photon and you are trying to obtain which way information, you might be asking for information which does not exist. -or- You could be fiddling with dimension somehow, possibly attempting to violate F=ma. Trying to obtain which way information could be the equivalent of attempting to violate conservation of energy. This might sound stupid at first, because information is not equivalent to energy. But order is definately related to observability. You have already split the photon, something which is supposed to be impossible. Then you are trying to do things with the components, components which should "appear" nonexistent to an observer on our scale. You are trying to obtain information, information which is related to order, and the order either does not exist, or there is so much disorder that the information cannot exist in 1 dimension ? OK - my head is spinning. Whatever the asnwer is, it will require a new way of thinking about things. I should also clarify why I think that an order-disorder continuum is neccesary, as opposed to a "well ordering" of orders, or a strict dichotomy of order vs. disorder. In the case of the white spheres and the black eggs, the only thing which distinguishes a white sphere from a blagg egg in the first place si that the bklack egg is placed right on the boudary of observability. It can be %90 in, and %10 out. Or, it can be %50, %50. Or t can be %10 in, and %90 out. So, sme black eggs are "more random" then others because they are missing more information than others. Perhaps we should speak of gray eggs. In terms of the universe, you have a continuum of scales. The lower boundary is Planck scale, and the situation is quite analogous to the example. Hi RadicalLibertarian, As I keep telling you... So_Called order and disorder and _Not_ the key to understanding cosmology or particle physics. Nothing is intrinsically random; instead, some things are simply unknown, given _Today_'s best observations/theories. For example: The spin of the earth and it's path around the sun are well known, a priori; but, until it's measured, the spin of a photon and its path are unknown. GR tells us that time and entropy are intrinsically _Spatial_, it's only unknowns that make them seem directional. SNLS' preliminary data, released November 22, and WMAP's March 17th data are confirming GR's cosmological _Constant_, explaining the very _Source_ of gravity, i.e. it's just leftover density... the cosmos has just always been dissipating. Because gravitational time dilation is a function of the escape velocity, I posit that things are actually traveling that fast there, but in a cyclical, -- hence accelerated --, fashion, and in more dimensions. SNLS' preliminary data has GR's lambda _Constant_, within a 10 percent error, for at least the last 12 billion years, and WMAP defines lambda's value to within a 5 percent error. WMAP's March 17th data shows only polerizations consistent with dissipation, -- i.e. ever increasing entropy --, not from the massive gravity waves we'd see if, absurdly, the entire cosmos had instantly popped into existence... sheesh, talk about science fiction ! So... I posit that entropy is an intrinsic property of mass-energy. Further, I posit that entropy is the measure of so-called cosmic time, the fifth _Spatial_ dimension, Space_time_Entropy. The 5D shape of the cosmos, Space_Time_Entropy, can be imagined as a 2D hyperbola or a 3D horn with an infinitely long mouthpiece and flange. As Hawking keeps saying... the cosmos has no beginning or end. Because the cosmos has no center of gravity, it's 4D shape, i.e. Space_Time, -- not 3D Space or 5D Space_Time_Entropy, mind you --, is flat, like a straight 2D line. > I posit that entropy is an intrinsic property of mass-energy. > Further, I posit that entropy is the measure of so-called cosmic time, > the fifth _Spatial_ dimension, Space_time_Entropy. No. You are wrong. You know you are wrong. You use the evidence that you are wrong as evidence elsewhere. Please, either show how the fundamental forces (and standard candles) work in your five spatial dimensions or shut up. Note: cutting and pasting long winded, irrelevant articles from Wiki do not count. The evidence has to be about the forces in five spatial dimensions. Jeff...Relf wrote: Oh boy! Time for more of Relf's boring and yet increidbly prolific garbage. > Hi RadicalLibertarian, As I keep telling you... > So_Called order and disorder and _Not_ > the key to understanding cosmology or particle physics. Since you don't even know what the door to particle physics is, I honestly doubt you have any idea what the key is. > Nothing is intrinsically random; instead, some things are simply unknown, > given _Today_'s best observations/theories. Wrong. Others much smarter than you have thought of this. The experiments that check for this are called "hidden variable" experiments. > For example: > > The spin of the earth and it's path around the sun are well known, a priori; > but, until it's measured, the spin of a photon and its path are unknown. Wrong again, fuckwit. The movement of the Earth about its' axis, and around the Sun are both classical measurments. The spin of a photon and its' path are quantum measurments. There is no comparison. > GR tells us that time and entropy are intrinsically _Spatial_, Wrong yet again, fuckwit. GR says nothing about the relation, if any, between time and entropy. > it's only unknowns that make them seem directional. Relfian word salad. > SNLS' preliminary data, released November 22, > and WMAP's March 17th data are confirming GR's cosmological _Constant_, > explaining the very _Source_ of gravity, Word salad mark 2. > i.e. it's just leftover density... the cosmos has just always been dissipating. Word salad mark 3. > Because gravitational time dilation is a function of the escape velocity, No it isn't, fuckwit. > I posit that things are actually traveling that fast there, > but in a cyclical, -- hence accelerated --, fashion, and in more dimensions. Word salad mark 4. > SNLS' preliminary data has GR's lambda _Constant_, within a 10 percent error, > for at least the last 12 billion years, and WMAP defines lambda's value > to within a 5 percent error. You can quotemine wikipedia but you cannot demonstrate working knowledge of what you are quotemining. > WMAP's March 17th data shows only polerizations consistent > with dissipation, -- i.e. ever increasing entropy --, That isn't what the 3rd year data release says, fuckwit. Goddamn you know nothing. > not from the massive gravity waves we'd see if, absurdly, the entire cosmos > had instantly popped into existence... sheesh, talk about science fiction ! Since you understand nothing of which you speak, it surprises me not at all to see you consider current theories to be science fiction. (fuckwit) > So... > I posit that entropy is an intrinsic property of mass-energy. Good for you. Even though you are completely incapable of doing anything but "posit". > Further, I posit that entropy is the measure of so-called cosmic time, > the fifth _Spatial_ dimension, Space_time_Entropy. Word salad mark 5. > The 5D shape of the cosmos, Space_Time_Entropy, can be imagined > as a 2D hyperbola or a 3D horn with an infinitely long mouthpiece and flange. > As Hawking keeps saying... the cosmos has no beginning or end. Word salad mark 6. > Because the cosmos has no center of gravity, it's 4D shape, i.e. Space_Time, > -- not 3D Space or 5D Space_Time_Entropy, mind you --, > is flat, like a straight 2D line. Word salad mark 7. Everything you say is either a word salad of technical terms or it is flat out wrong. Hi Eric_Gisse, Why is your life so devoid of content that you have to fill it with mine ? > Hi Eric_Gisse, > > Why is your life so devoid of content that you have to fill it with mine ? Why do you post everything but physics to news://sci.physics ? Hi T_Wake, You asked me: Why do you post everything but physics to news://sci.physics ? You wouldn't know physics if it bit you in the a.s. Hope that helps, have a nive day. > Hi T_Wake, You asked me: > > Why do you post everything but physics to news://sci.physics ? > > You wouldn't know physics if it bit you in the a.s. Again, you continue with your fixation regarding my a.s. Do you have issues about this? Oddly, despite your protestations, you still havent (ever) posted any physics. > Hope that helps, have a nive day. I am sure I would except it is now midnight and I have no idea what a "nive day" is. T_Wake, Stop harassing me. You're helping no one. (still resorting to a cut and paste to avoid the questions I see) "Jeff.Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_30_qMDZ@Cotse.NET (and in news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_30_Os2h@Cotse.NET and in news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_30_oLBz@Cotse.NET )... > T_Wake, Stop harassing me. You're helping no one. I am not harassing you. You are the one making references to your desire to get up my a.s. As I have said. As soon as you post the scientific basis for your claims I will stop pointing out your fallacies. You have the choices here Jeff. I am not forcing you to post in news://sci.physics - but as long as you (and you continue to make off the rails posits with are already falsified) then I will exercise my choice of responding to you posts and ensuring any one who debates with you is aware of your failings. This is all because you have resolutely refused to explain how your idea of entropy being the fifth spatial dimension can actually fit in with ANY other physics (even the standard candles you love to talk about are based on three spatial dimensions). The kicker from my point of view is, you cant even see where you are going wrong. T_Wake, Stop harassing me. You're helping no one. (still resorting to a cut and paste to avoid the questions I see) "Jeff.Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_30_zguv@Cotse.NET (and in news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_30_qMDZ@Cotse.NET and in news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_30_Os2h@Cotse.NET and in news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_30_oLBz@Cotse.NET )... > T_Wake, Stop harassing me. You're helping no one. I am not harassing you. You are the one making references to your desire to get up my a.s. As I have said. As soon as you post the scientific basis for your claims I will stop pointing out your fallacies. You have the choices here Jeff. I am not forcing you to post in news://sci.physics - but as long as you (and you continue to make off the rails posits with are already falsified) then I will exercise my choice of responding to you posts and ensuring any one who debates with you is aware of your failings. This is all because you have resolutely refused to explain how your idea of entropy being the fifth spatial dimension can actually fit in with ANY other physics (even the standard candles you love to talk about are based on three spatial dimensions). The kicker from my point of view is, you cant even see where you are going wrong. Jeff...Relf wrote: > T_Wake, Stop harassing me. You're helping no one. If you don't like it, you are free to leave. Jeff...Relf wrote: > Hi T_Wake, You asked me: > > Why do you post everything but physics to news://sci.physics ? > > You wouldn't know physics if it bit you in the a.s. > Hope that helps, have a nive day. ...and you know what about physics? Every 'argument' you make is backed by mindless quotemining from wikipedia. You show neither knowledge nor wisdom, just word salad after word salad. | > | Guys - | > | [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] | This has been the primary undercurrent of scientific thought for over | 300 years. In hypothetical sentences introduced by 'if' and referring to past time, where conditions are to be deemed 'unfulfilled', the verb will regularly be found in the pluperfect subjunctive, in both protasis and apodosis. -- Donet, "Principles of Elementary Latin Syntax" Try to complete all "IF ... THEN ..." statements with "ELSE ..." IF I jump out of a plane at 30,000 ft without a parachute THEN I will die ELSE I have never jumped out of a plane AND I shall die. The contrapositive is : I am not dead, therefore I did not jump out of a plane, else I would NOT be continuing this conversation. I hope this helps you to think because I do not intend to continue this conversation and I am not dead. Androcles 29032311 | Consider that there may be scaels from - infinity all the way up to + | infinity, but that because of curvature or some other liniting process [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] | OK - my head is spinning. Whatever the asnwer is, it will require a new | way of thinking about things. > One mans obvious is another mans giant leap of faith. > If you can't see the forest for the trees watch the squirrels > instead.You may discover how forests are planted. > Androcles. Why does the word "entropy" drive sane people mad? SignatureTimothy Murphy e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366 s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland > 1) Consider the unit cube. There is a point like particle bouncing > around inside the box like a billiard ball, but it does not neccesarily > obey the laws of reflection when it bounces off walls. It's motion is > highly unpredictable and it looks like it is random. The system, on > whole, is probabilistic. Your only choice to model this system is > statistics. The neatest thing about randonmess though is that it's orthogonal to idiots like physicts who study statistical dynamics. Which isn't physics anyway, it's a trivial economics problem. > 2) Consider the same cube but now add another point like particle so > that there are now 2 particles in the box. The first one is still [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > But is this really the best answer ? Is there a better answer ? If I was really interested in entropy at all I'd be babbling about Kolmogorov complexity and Solomonoff induction. I wont discount the possibility that my ideas are somehow equivalent to Kolmogorov complexity, but I'm not interested in exploring the connection at the moment. I'm much more interested in the "chemistry of dimension", and how to understand the double slit, and maybe whatever else. There are people talking about "restricted observability" of information leading to randomness in information theory. This is really just a bunch of mathematicians who are trying to do physics. After all, only physicists need to worry about making observations. Well, I think that it's forgiveable - I dont know about restricting observability of information - to me that is difficult to visualize. But I would certainly agree that it makes good sense and is easy to understand that length and time have restricted observability. I hope that you guys realize, and fully appreciate that the information science crowd is looking at "observability" of information. They are doing the exact same thing I'm doing, but they are modelling the wrong thing. They should be looking at observability of length, and consequences of restricting it. Max Planck did not say that there is a "smallest chunk of information that has any meaning" - did he ? Entropy schmentropy. OK guy's - here's the thought for the day. Chew on this one as you admire the young lassies prancing around the campus - eh ? Here goes - In 1 dimension, you cannot have disorder because it would violate F=ma. I know, I know, linear oscillators exhibit chaos etc etc, but I'm talking about simple undamped undriven linear motion. If it's disorderly, you must be violating conservation of energy. OK then - In 2D, you can have lots of disorder without violating conservation of energy. But if the disorder along either axis exactly matches the disorder along the other axis, then you ARE violating conservation. You CAN have disorder along both axes without violating conservation of energy, but there are ways to violate it. What this means to me is that absolute randomness is impossible, and I think that we are heading toward a geometric PROOF. A simple one. One more time - concept of the day - if the disorder on the X axis is mirrored on the Y axis, then you ARE violating conservation of energy - bwwwwaaaaaaaahaaaahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa........ but if the axis are not identical in terms of their disorder, then conservation is not violated !!!!!!!! Just to recap, we are talkign about billiards which obey F=ma, but does not neccesarily obey the law that "angle of reflection = angle of incidence". So, the disorder is showing up in the angle of reflection after collisions of the billiard balls. But, F=ma is being preserved. The angle can be "nearly random", but we are going to conserve momentum. If the disorder in the X axis exactly mirrors the disorder in the Y axis, then you are creating disorder along the line y=x, which is the same thing as having disorder in 1 dimension which violates conservation of energy. We are allowing ball A to collide with ball B, momemtum is conserved, but angle of reflection can be random. Hold on a sec - let me think about this for a minute. OK - I was wrong about the 1D case. 2 balls collide in a stright pipe and momentum is conserved, but there are still 2 different directions that ball B can travel. This can be a coin toss, so you CAN have disorder in 1 dimensional impact of billiards while conserving momentum. I was wrong about that. OK folks - one baby step at a time, we'll figure it out eventually. Ah well - back to the drawing board. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.