Entropy

[EntropyHater12345 No.12094401]

I'm gonna say it right now: the entropy "Arrow of Time" concept is fucking retarded. Call me a boot-licker but nobody says that gravity is an "Arrow of Time" because objects fucking attract each other. Nor do they say that electro-magnetism is an arrow of time because oppositely charged particles repel each other. They also don't say that a charged particle moving in a magnetic field is an "Arrow of Time" because magnetism is acting on it. I could go on and on with these types of examples, but I think any reader with a modicum of a fucking brain cell can understand that time is an objective variable defining interactions between states of being and has nothing to fucking do with thermodynamic theory.

Not to mention, the second law of thermodynamics is wrong. Entropy only increases because it is statistically likely to increase. There's really nothing stopping your great great grandma from sporadically rising up out of the ground like she's a 20 year old pregnant prostitute again. If you're still thinking "hurr-durr but this scient00st from discovery channel said second law" get your head out of the toilet right now and pursue an actual physics degree so you can at least be a professional idiot. If a P.H.D. said anything even remotely close to this pseudo-scientific bullshit, that just makes them cum-sodas with a piece of paper saying that they need to be respected. I actually don't care about anybody's certification here and in fact think that it's relatively comical that such stupidity is actually pretty common even among the ivy-league educated.
(1/2)

[EntropyHater12345 No.12094406]

>>12094401

What's worse is when people argue that if the universe had "maximum" entropy we wouldn't be able to move forward in time. Ever heard of the Poincaré recurrence theorem? If it's possible for the universe to reverse itself, it will eventually get arbitrarily close to its original state. Period. As for all the "scientists" out there asking "w-w-w-hy entropy m0r at stert of dehr uniberse?1?11?1?1?" it's pretty damn simple: the universe either came from nothing or was created by an entity (god) who came from nothing. Either way, what you are describing is the creation of the universe, which has nothing to do with entropy. You're just trying to sound smart but you are only impressing other people trying to sound smart. In conclusion: if you still disagree with me, go stick a particle accelerator up your ass, and please stop editing Wikipedia articles to reflect your dumb opinions about a topic you that you earnestly don't understand.
(2/2)

[Anonymous No.12094409]

>trying this hard

[EntropyHater12345 No.12094432]

>>12094409
Do you ever stare at the wall and think "yes... this Turds-gesaght video I watched was so informative... now time to go eat rat-poop burgers from a dumpster and then take a poop in the alley way..."?

[Anonymous No.12095345]

>>12094401
You're a fag construct an engine which runs with 0 energy losses then you fucking retard if 2nd law is bull

[Anonymous No.12095596]

>>12094401
what youtube video did you watch link it man i want to see the pseudoscience schizo that triggered all these retarded threads about entropy.

[Anonymous No.12095877]

>>12095345
>>12095596
>Didn't actually read what I said

Let's look an example: cooking spaghetti.
A macrostate represents general information about the state of a system. It could be, for example, how stiff the noodles are or whether the sauce has been completely or partially mixed in with the noodles. Let's call these values S for stiffness and M for mixiness, and let's also, for the sake of simplicity, measure them from 0 to 1 (0 being the least possible stiffness/mixiness, 1 being the max).

Now we need microstates for our model. Those are supposed to describe more specific information, such as the geometric position of all the individual noodle/sauce atoms as well as the individual velocities of each. You might notice that describing a microstate would require you to describe the positions and velocities of trillions of atoms, whereas we could model our macrostate from just 2 simple variables.

Now let's consider a basic question: given a macrostate, how many microstates can we think of that will "fit" that macrostate? Let's call this value C. There are only so many geometric positions of noodles and sauce that we can say are perfectly "stiff" and "unmixed" (values of 1 and 0, respectively). If we get too creative, we notice that out sauce is starting to intermingle with the spaghetti, and that the spaghetti particles are moving too chaotically for it to be called stiff any longer. Let's make a stupid assumption (because there are still many, many, many ways to order these particles) and say that C, in this case, is as low as 1 trillion.

Then think of a more "chaotic" macrostate: a value of 0 for stiffness, and a value of 1 for mixiness. Now, we would expect there to be MANY more microstates that "fit" this example, simply because we can basically stick the spaghetti and sauce wherever we want and have the spaghetti and sauce particles moving in random directions (on a relative atomic scale) too.
(1/2)

[Anonymous No.12095895]

>>12095877
Banach's fixed-point theorem shows that your sauce can never be completely mixed.

[EntropyHater12345 No.12095918]

>>12095345
>>12095596

While the value of C here would be exponentially larger than the value of C previously, which we also massively underestimated, let's also make a stupid assumption and say that the value of C now is just 1 quadrillion, or 1000 times 1 trillion.

In a constantly evolving universe that is continuously changing microstates due to molecular collisions and interactions, what is to become of our spaghetti? Given that there are FAR more microstates describing noodly spaghetti mixed with sauce than stiff spaghetti that isn't mixed with sauce, over time, we are simply more likely to enter a macrostate that is more "common" (has more microstates that describe it). In our case, the chaotic version of spaghetti is 1000 times more common than the orderly version.

Nearing the end, here's the rigorous definition of entropy: it is the natural logarithm of the number of microstates that currently describe the macrostate. Yes, the definition is wishy washy since we can model the macrostates and microstates however we want, but for all intents and purposes, this is what entropy describes. The reason why it's the natural logarithm of C and not C itself, by the way, is simply a convenience thing to account for the fact that C should increase exponentionally with more chaotic macrostates. Thus, an "entropy level" of 3 in our spaghetti system is exponentionally higher than an "entropy level" of 2.

Finally, the fact that we are very likely to enter a more chaotic state of the world because molecular structures describing them are more common does not mean that it is mechanically impossible for it to occur, and that's where I'm saying that you are wrong.
(2/2)

[Anonymous No.12095923]

>>12094401
>oppositely charged particles repel each other

[EntropyHater12345 No.12095932]

>>12095918
for entropy reversal to occur.*

[EntropyHater12345 No.12095935]

>>12095923
That's literally just a grammatical error. If you think you found a flaw in my argument go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous No.12096558]

>>12095918
>In our case, the chaotic version of spaghetti is 1000 times more common than the orderly version.
This is your brain on statistical thermodynamics everyone.

[Anonymous No.12097325]

>>12094401
>Call me a boot-licker but nobody says that gravity is an "Arrow of Time" because objects fucking attract each other.
How do you tell which way is "forward" from an orbit?
Clockwise and counterclockwise are just as valid.

>charged particles
Where do these even exist?
Everything neutralized gorillions of years ago.
They need to be produced by macroscopic processes now.
These macroscopic processes stop being possible once everything equilibrates.

[Anonymous No.12097337]

>>12095918
>Yes, the definition is wishy washy since we can model the macrostates and microstates however we want
It's the same as "degeneracy" in quantum mechanics.
Multiple microstates per macrostate => higher entropy.
Multiple quantum states per set of eigenvalues => higher degree of degeneracy.

[Anonymous No.12097353]

>>12094401
the arrow of time is subjective/psychological. Just because we experience time a certain way does not mean reality is like that, fundamentally

[Anonymous No.12097573]

>>12094401
Bist du deutsch?

[Anonymous No.12098426]

>>12095596
I just randomly opened /sci/ today so I dont know what threads you are talking about but it might be that new nolan movie Tenet. They got some kind of machine that reverses entropy which results in the flow of time going in reverse for the person that went into it.

[Anonymous No.12098439]

>>12094401
Humans are gods chosen animals to

A C C E L E R A T E
E N T R O P Y

They key is to not increase the entropy on earth too much before we can get out into the solar system and accelerate entropy there as well.