Discussion between Phiteros and Justin Thyme

Justin Thyme

01:55

Then how did the single point of the big bang occur in the first place? Obviously entropy was reduced to zero at some point.

Phiteros

02:19

Entropy started at zero. It wasn't ever reduced to zero.

Justin Thyme

OOOps, note to self, do not hit return. A thought experiment. Imagine if humans expanded to the entire universe. Sure, a gazillion gazillion years from now. We gained the ability to push everything into one black hole. We learned how to harness every available source of energy to accomplish this. (The sun works on nuclear energy, but we can BUILD a sun.) Everything. All matter. No energy can escape. How is this not decreasing entropy?

No, I do not think it would ever occur by any natural means, but that is the point. Humans can think and plan. We can direct. We can use the laws of physics to our advantage. We can convert ALL available energy to work, if making one central black hole can be considered work. Would we do it? Probably not. But my point is, of all the theories about entropy, none of them factor in life. That life organizes, concentrates energy, BUILDS.

Only life can create a reversible process. Only life can produce a machine. Without life, there would never be an automobile. It just isn't a product of any natural process. It is human activity that keeps forcing the laws of thermodynamics to be 'clarified'. But will life rebuild the universe? Yes, I truly think it can. See link for example.

But again I urge you to check out the link. This process is 200% efficient. It converts more heat to light than it produces. See the explanation in the link about entropy. It considers the light as 'heat' not 'work'. Really, I think that is a cop-out work-around, so they can not use it as an example of a system that does not evade the laws of entropy. If one form of energy conversion can be called 'heat' and not 'work', why can't all forms of energy conversion be treated this way?

Phiteros

If you really want to understand the physics of entropy at a fundamental level, you need to take a course on thermodynamics.

Secondly, black holes do have entropy, so you wouldn't be decreasing the entropy of the universe by shoving everything into a black hole.

Black-hole thermodynamics

In physics, black-hole thermodynamics is the area of study that seeks to reconcile the laws of thermodynamics with the existence of black-hole event horizons. As the study of the statistical mechanics of black-body radiation led to the advent of the theory of quantum mechanics, the effort to understand the statistical mechanics of black holes has had a deep impact upon the understanding of quantum gravity, leading to the formulation of the holographic principle. == Overview == The second law of thermodynamics requires that black holes have entropy. If black holes carried no entropy, it would be...

Justin Thyme

In other words, if their is no left-over heat, and all the energy including the heat produced and the electrical input, is converted to light, which they then call heat, haven't they just gamed the system to protect their theories?

Phiteros

The problem is that you have fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of energy.

And it's not helped by the fact that physics admittedly uses some terms interchangeably.

Heat, energy, and light (electromagnetic radiation) are all deeply tied together. So sometimes when we talk about "heat being radiated", we're talking about infrared radiation. Other times when we talk about energy, we could mean thermal energy, electromagnetic energy, potential energy, or any number of things.

Justin Thyme

02:35

I think at my level of education I would have to take more than a fundamental level course to increase my knowledge of thermodynamics. They often say that in first year physics, you learn that everything you were taught in high school was wrong. In second year, you learn that everything you were taught in first year was wrong. By the time you get to CERN, you learn that everything everyone else was taught about physics was wrong.

Phiteros

The fact that life creates complexity doesn't mean it's lowering entropy.

When you study physics in high school, what you learn isn't wrong. It's just a simplified form of what's really going on. And these simplifications work very well on certain scales, but break down on other ones.

Justin Thyme

No, what I know is that physicists change their definitions to suit their theories. If one equation doesn't quite work, well then use a 'cooks constant variable' to make it work. The Higgs Field was a cooks constant variable to make the equations work. But they still don't quite work, so a few more cooks constant variables have been proposed.

Phiteros

A good example of this is gravity. Everybody learns Newton's laws of gravity, but that's just a small-scale simplification of Einstein's relativity. But you can't teach relativity to a high school student because that would require differential equations.

Now, as for the idea that physicists change their definitions, that's not really accurate. As we gain more data and learn more about the universe around us, we are forced to revisit our older theories and change them so they better reflect what's really going on.

And physicists don't like simply sticking a term in an equation in order to make it work. We'd much rather figure out why we need that term - what it physically represents. The Higgs Field is a theory which explains why particles have mass. It wasn't something that was just cooked up in order to make the math work. Higgs looked at quantum field theory and thought "If there's a field like this, things will work out." So we looked for one, and we found it.

Justin Thyme

And exactly what is the relationship between entropy and complexity? i would say that the making of a nuclear bomb involves enrichment procedures that go against nature. How many controlled centrifuges are you aware of in nature? Certainly, when it exploded over Japan, there was no debate about harnessing energy.

Phiteros

Where Does Complexity Come From? (Big Picture Ep. 3/5)

►

Watch the video.

There is no real relation between complexity and entropy. They're two different properties.

Justin Thyme

02:44

No, you need differential equations to explain the model. Newton certainly didn't need differential equations to know that gravity existed. But a model of reality is not the reality.

'...change them to reflect...'. like I said, just introduce a new cooks constant variable to try to 'math' away the discrepancies. Then give the new concocted variable a legitimate-sounding name, and call it a theory. Then call it a fact, until another discrepancy forces you to another variable.

Phiteros

No, you need differential equations because of how things interact with each other. Here's a simple example: Let's say that you have a red ball. And let's say that the size of the ball depends on how red it is. But how red it is also depends on its size. That system is governed by a differential equation.

@JustinThyme The study of physics is the pursuit of why the universe is the way it is and how it works. We don't just "math away discrepancies." We look at something and say "this is a mathematical structure that governs how this property behaves. Why is the mathematical structure like this and not something else?"

And then we run tests to see what works and what doesn't.

Justin Thyme

Entropy just says that the chances of rolling the same number on a die an infinity of times is impossible, not just unlikely. What is the probability of every election in the universe appearing at exactly the same place at exactly the same time? And staying there?

Phiteros

That isn't what entropy is.

Look, through no fault of your own, you lack the necessary understanding of physics to understand some of this. I've studied physics for 6 years. If you want to learn more about this subject, I'd be happy to point you to some resources, but I don't think that we're going to get anywhere discussing things like this.

Justin Thyme

Differential equations go one way only. Integration goes the other way. Speed gives you distance, and distance gives you speed (given time). But you can't use the same method to go in both directions. Going from speed to distance, you know that speed is constant. Going from distance to speed, you have to assume speed is constant.

Phiteros

03:00

What you're thinking of is a simple differential equation which only has one dependent variable. But when physicists refer to differential equations, they generally mean much more complex equations.

For example, the Friedmann Equation which describes the curvature of the universe: The universe's curvature depends on the distribution of mass inside it. But the distribution of mass is dependent upon the curvature of the universe.

Justin Thyme

Knowing the constant speed and the time causes the distance, but just knowing the distance and the time does not cause the speed, unless you make assumptions. Yet calculus says the causation goes in both directions. Speed causes distance, and distance causes speed.

Adding more variables only leads to a more complex model. It does not reduce that there are assumptions that have been made.

And these assumptions are always regarding what has happened, so they can be validated or assumed. However, there is no guarantee that the assumptions will hold for the future.

Phiteros

Look, you need more of an understanding of basic physics. Otherwise this conversation will go nowhere.

Like I said, I can point you to resources so that you can learn about this yourself.

Justin Thyme

One of us needs more knowledge.

Phiteros

And the one of us that needs more knowledge is not the one who has studied physics for the better part of a decade.

Justin Thyme

Try four decades.

A little learning is a dangerous thing. It leads to a certain know-it-all attitude.

Phiteros

03:15

You're saying that you are a professional physicist who has studied physics for 40 years?

Justin Thyme

Have you worked at CERN?

Phiteros

You're saying you do? As a scientist?

Justin Thyme

03:27

No, as a floor cleaner. Young pups today.

Phiteros

Look, I think that we're coming from backgrounds that are different enough so as to make further conversation meaningless. You have some weird ideas about life being able to reduce entropy which I do not agree with.

Justin Thyme

03:44

I was at a charity lunch. I forget what charity. I was seated beside a nice fine gentleman. In the conversation, it cane up that he taught physics. I was working on a physics problem, and so I casually inquired if he could give any insight. He declined, saying he was not qualified to give an answer, as it was not his particular area of expertise.

I am very embarrassed to say that I did not recognize him. I found out later he was the 1994 winner of the Nobel prize in physics. That taught me a lot about humility. It also taught me never to make an assumption about another's qualifications.

I remember the controversy over Professor Higgs ideas, when they were first proposed. But there are a number of us who believe that this is just as controversial, but it is perhaps the best cooks constant variable that fills in the equations. The big one, of course, is 'Why are ALL the physics constants EXACTLY what is required to produce life on earth?'

njzk2

05:55

bees reducing entropy is a local phenomenon. They create a lot of heat by just being, to get to those small bits of organization. The same principle goes for plants. Any cycle, if you look at all the parts (including how you deal with the by-products of the plant using the excess heat), increases entropy. As a side not, there are a few interesting discussions about how that works en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life

Valthek

07:55

@JustinThyme The answer to your last question is pretty simple: If the constants weren't what was required to produce life on earth, we wouldn't be around to discuss it. The constants might be a little off but until we have more data (such as, for example, life elsewhere) we have no way to correct these constants. So for now, they're good enough for our purposes.

Transcript for

Discussion between Phiteros and Justi…