>Entropy always increases in the univer-ACK!

>>16724432 (OP)
>>Entropy always increases
Says who?

>>16724432 (OP)
Settle down, okay?

That's just magnetism and will fall to disarray in time as the earth's magnetic stones lose charge.

>>16724432 (OP)
>Doesn't understand entropy

From end to start:
4. 2 layers with agitated molecules
3. 2. bubbles/segregated liquids with the superficial tension temporary retaining a lot of energy that will agitate the molecules when it aggregates into 2 differentiated layers
1. 2 layers with less agitated molecules
The end result is 2 layers internally

A more interesting example would be 2 layers like 4. but with a emulsifying agent in the water, will the glass end like an homogeneous emulsion if the superficial tension isn't too large?

>>16724450
>The end result is 2 layers internally
The end result is 2 layers internally agitated* and that agitation comes from the potential energy.

>>16724432 (OP)
Check out Chapter 7 of "Physical Chemistry (7th Edition)" by Peter Atkins and Julio de Paula. It's called "Simple Mixtures" and explains in more depth than I'm about to why what you posted is retarded.
The simple answer is that the entropy in the hydrogen bonding in water is greater than the entropy "gained" by forming a solution of water and oil - the two mixing would decrease the total entropy.

>>16724449
Entropy is unscientific and what they broke thermodynamics with.

>>16724474
>I'm too stupid to understand it so it must be wrong somehow

>>16724432 (OP)
just give it some time. at some point a cat will come and tip the glass over

>>16724474
I don't particularly like thermodynamics either (or physics for that matter), but entropy itself isn't a particularly confusing or "unscientific" concept. People say a lot of dumb things with "entropy" used as a justification, but entropy is just another way of measuring "disorder" of a particular random variable.

Unlike variance (which tells you how much a particular set of random samples will vary), entropy tells you disorder in the sense that it measures how much knowing previous samples will reduce your uncertainty about future samples. If knowing that the previous observation of X_0 significantly helps you in guessing what X_1 will be the next time you make an observation, that is a "low entropy" or structured system. If knowing X_0 gives changes how wrong you next guess at X_1 is by very little, then this is a "high entropy" or very unstructured system.

This is mostly useful in a statistical context, as it lets you quantify how much you can reduce your uncertainty in a statistical estimate by taking another observation. However, it finds uses in a lot of other contexts as well.

>>16724631
Some of those sentences had pretty messed up grammar. Don't forget to sleep guys.

>>16724634
kek I thought I was just having a stroke or something

>>16724432 (OP)
Entropy isn't mixture, it's just the lowest energy state.

>>16724432 (OP)
>pattern-seeking brains when they see a local system that doesn't extrapolate directly to the global

>>16724464
>The simple answer is that the entropy in the hydrogen bonding in water is greater than the entropy "gained" by forming a solution of water and oil - the two mixing would decrease the total entropy.
this makes no sense and cannot be the correct answer. to wit: this would not occur in a zero-g environment, yet the hydrogen bonds in water still exist.

>>16724432 (OP)
this is why the "disorder" interpretation of entropy is dogshit. entropy, from a thermodynamic perspective is the energy being more distributed over time. there's a buoyant force from the water driving the oil upward, and there is also viscous drag generating heat. if the buoyant force were perfectly efficient at driving the oil upward (no viscous drag), then the entropy won't have decreased. so the entropy of the water-oil system increased in the form of heating up the solution uniformly. this heating up may be minuscule in absolute value, and since the cup is connected to the external environment, this small heating may be dissipated into the environment instead of the cup heating up.

>>16724685
>then the entropy won't have decreased
won't have increased*

>>16724683
>this makes no sense and cannot be the correct answer.
It's okay to admit you don't understand a topic!
>to wit: this would not occur in a zero-g environment, yet the hydrogen bonds in water still exist.
They won't form two layers separated by density sure, but they still don't mix kek

>>16724697
depends what you mean by "mix" - they would most certainly have chunks of oil embedded in chunks of water and vice versa. this satisfies any reasonable notion of mixed. no, they would not mix uniformly - on that you'd be correct.
>don't understand
take your own advice - i already gave the correct answer here.
>>16724685
the entropy increases due to viscous drag from the buoyant force (which, mind you, does not exist in the zero-g environment).

>Entropy always increases
The law is entropy *tends to* increase, not entropy *always* increases.

>>16724699
>this satisfies any reasonable notion of mixed
kek no it doesn't
>i already gave the correct answer here.
You've proven you have no idea what you're talking about that's fure sure