Thread 16841511

How come scientists can’t agree on the definition of entropy? Everyone always answers differently.

>>16841511 (OP)
They are confused. See second law of thermodynamics. See "hard problem of consciousness". See quantum computing.
These are all symptoms stemming from the same confusion.

>>16841513
Huh? That doesn’t answer my question, and the Wikipedia pages for those concepts have like 20 definitions for the 2nd law at least wtf

>>16841511 (OP)
The twelve arrows of times all point in the same direction and little tommie qt3.14 here is worried by that amazing cosmic reassurance. It will be OK, tommie. Come here and let me give you a big long cuddle.

>>16841511 (OP)
The concept of entropy was developed in the 1800s, first as the idea of "unusable energy", but then once statistical mechanics was created, the more formal and current definition was formed, which has to do with the total possible micro states

>>16841511 (OP)
this is maliciously done by design
>My greatest concern was what to call it. I thought of calling it 'information,' but the word was overly used, so I decided to call it 'uncertainty.' When I discussed it with John von Neumann, he had a better idea. Von Neumann told me, 'You should call it entropy, for two reasons. In the first place your uncertainty function has been used in statistical mechanics under that name, so it already has a name. In the second place, and more important, no one really knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage.'
https://mathoverflow.net/questions/403036/john-von-neumanns-remark-on-entropy
entropy is simply the dispersion of energy in thermodynamics. anything else is made up horseshit unsubstantiated by experimental evidence.

>>16841632
Ok so why do people say black holes have high entropy? They suck in matter which is energy supposedly according to Einstein

>>16841511 (OP)
because competent scientists don't purport to espouse truth

>>16841764
Science is literally the pursuit of truth please just fuck off from my threads for the rest of your miserable life

>>16841511 (OP)
There's no disagreement on the definition. The disagreement is how best to describe it.
>chaos?
I mean, I guess. In a strictly mathematical sense.
>"boringness?"
I suppose. Still water has more entropy than stormy waters.
>something something "microstates?"
Yeah, sure, more ways to reach a certain state = more entropy.

The way I like to describe it is just even dispersal or averaging out. A hot cup of coffee will eventually match the temperature of the room it's in. That's the second law.

>>16841749
string theorist schizophrenia, would be my best guess.
>our laws of cosmology break down at black holes!
>but laws of thermodynamics MUST apply to them
>REEEE
or something like that.

>>16841511 (OP)
They do? It's the logarithm of the number of microstates. What may be ambiguous is the definition of a microstate, but in quantum mechanics it's always the energy spectrum of the system in question. It is THE reason why quantum mechanics originated as Planck's solution to the UV catastrophe. Statistical mechanics in general is inherently pathological in the framework of classical (either Newtonian or relativistic) mechanics.

>>16841811
Science is indistinguishable from magic

>>16842038
You can’t even agree with yourself in your reply, do you even realize how hysterical you sound? Read your post back to yourself.

>>16841811
pursuit of truth != claiming you know absolute truth
the latter is religion

i'll add, i do RF research, and it's remarkable how even a group of Ph.D.s studying objective reality can hardly agree on anything
it's the freshman in physics that thinks they are studying "the truth", it's an actual physicist that recognizes they study models of nature

>>16842207
>they are studying "the truth", it's an actual physicist that recognizes they study models of nature
The difference being what exactly, dualist? Why are you even on this board?

>>16842160
Classical mechanics is wrong for a reason, schizo.

>>16842211
We were able to build a nuclear bomb before QM based entirely on Newtonian physics. Cry more?

>>16842214
Ok? What does this have to do with the fact that statmech is pathological in classical mechanics? The third law of thermo never holds for example.

>>16842216
Define the third law for me. Can you fags agree on that at least? But probably not.

>>16842208
i can lead an underclassman-ass to water, but i can't make them drink
here, i'll take your position to illustrate my point: name one (1) physical theory that _exactly_ corresponds to how nature behaves

btw, just because there are multiple definitions of entropy doesn't mean one is better or worse than the others. they may be usefully quantifying different things, even if they are semi-related. often people will qualify the type of entropy they are talking about i.e. information entropy vs physical entropy. the key is to understand what each is saying, not to choose one and call it "truth"

>>16842219
Anyone can build a robotic weapon, nuclear weapon, chemical weapon or bioweapon right now if they wanted to with AI. So this is extremely dangerous. Maybe the world has already ended we just don't know it yet.

>>16842222
>i can lead an underclassman-ass to water, but i can't make them drink
You’re no leader, but you certainly sound drunk. I think you have that idiom backwards.
>name one (1) physical theory that _exactly_ corresponds to how nature behaves
It would be easier to list those that don’t. Are you aware we have mapped DNA codons and can confirm with certainty that UUU always codes for phenylalanine? Don’t bother embarrassing yourself with another desperate reply and sit down, dog.

>>16842225
can't do it, can you, freshie?

>>16842228
I got my bachelors though so

>>16842219
You can literally google it. The entropy at absolute zero temperature must be zero.

>>16842150
To retards and morons like you, perhaps.

>>16842250
the google knows all
trust the google

>>16841811
>science
>caring about truth
Holy kek, what a stupid bitch.