|
Member 9167057 wrote: How does that violate the concept of entropy? |
To what do you refer when you use "that"? But, before you explain the mysterious 'that', try to keep in mind, this is a musing - not a presentation before the Nobel Committee.
Achievement of total chaos is simultaneously unachievable.
Perhaps our reality, our entire universe, is the last pocket of non-fully-chaotic materials and energy in the totality of existence - but only lately. The big bang? Perhaps the a possible manifestation of the spontaneous creation of our universe to thwart total chaos in order to maintain it.
The universe rewinds on any scale
Ravings en masse^ |
---|
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Well, what "that" were you referring to when you said "And my thinking was such a state cannot exist in that it would violate the concept of entropy"? That's the same "that" I am talking about.
Anyway, while there's an interesting philosophical question of what maximum entropy is, in it's physical form, there's no actual hard facts pointing to maximum entropy spontaneously giving birth to a universe, order.
Our universe being but a pocket in a metaverse is an interesting thought, but it's more of a mathemathical play. If you care, there's an even more interesting theory of our universe being a low-energy pocket of a-forever-expanding-high-vacuum-energy-inflating-metaverse. As far as the math goes, it makes somewhat more sense than assuming the universe being a pocket in a maximum-entryopy-metaverse, but it's still about as real as tachyons (which also work out mathemathically, but have pretty much 0 resemblence to reality).
To wind back quite a lot, it's interesting to regard maximum entropy as being identical to maximum order. How comes? Order got to do with symmetry. You can have, let's say, translational symmetry, rotational symmetry, mirroring symmetry. The more rotational axes or translational vectors you have, the more order generally is there. But a state of maximum entropy has all the symmetries there are, the set of translational vectors is infinite, same as rotational axes and angles.
That's not very substantial though. For starters, talking about entropy in terms of order or chaos doesn't really hold. In physics, entropy goes woth the number of microscopic scales corresponding to the same macroscopic state, or rather to the same macroscopic energy.
Back to the big bang, the universe being an island in a vast world of maximum entropy is but a theory. A nice one, sure, but the universe may just as well be, well the universe. As in "all there is". Not that long ago, an anomaly in the CMB was theorized to be another bubble universe (all in the context of the M-theory, here synonymous with string theory, which by itself is under scrutiny as it seems to be impossible to combine with our reality) but that's all rather unproven, more in the realm of "Well, sure, this may be the case, but let's go with Occam's Razor first".
In other words, a universe in a state of maximum entropy spontaneously giving birth to a pocket universe isn't exactly impossible according to modern physics, but so is technically time travel (which just requires some exotic stuff with negative mass). In other words, not exactly the most likely of explanations.
What is definitely possible, are quantum fluctiations. Those are not only possible, but unavoidable. They however are rather locally confined, both in space and time. Tip: There's an interesting theory going on right now, the holographic principle. It's about using QCD on a 3D surface of a 4D spacetime (i.e. our universe) which by the merit of entropy (read: Thermodynamics) creates space-time curvature (read: General relativity). From what I get, this is still in it's infancy but it's a somewhat likely candidate for the theory of everything. Since it combines general relativity and quantum field theory (the 2 right but conflicting, yet both proven experimentally to exhaustion) using thermodynamics as a glue, that may be something.
|
|
|
|
|
Me to myself:
Don't worry you are going to get the job done, code will run in first attempt, will do the article today chill girl chill...
Meanwhile my brain:
"Baby, tell me one more beautiful lie"
|
|
|
|
|
While you're lying to yourself here's a little something for you!
Jonny Lang - Lie To Me - YouTube[^]
I may not be that good looking, or athletic, or funny, or talented, or smart
I forgot where I was going with this but I do know I love bacon!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Me to myself: or
Black Sabbath - Am I Going Insane [Radio] - YouTube[^]
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
I see, you are not only a "glass half full" but a glass completely full person?
Or maybe just delusional.
Nothing ever works the first time.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I just believe "garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are Fairies at the bottom of it".
There is no problem so big that it cannot be solved with a little self-delusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would happily side with your wife. Though you can call the fairies to make your garden beautiful.
38 years is a long time I must say . How did you manage to survive?
Agree. I don't have as much experience as you have but I already feel the need for things to slow down a bit or else I might get fully delusional as well.
|
|
|
|
|
It takes three things to keep up:
1. Running like hell to "keep up"
2. Pig-headed stubbornness
3. Good Luck (Lots of it)
The last 2 items on the list have allowed me to stay married for 45 years as well.
Who Dat! Who Dat! Who Dat say they gonna beat them Saints!
|
|
|
|
|
I think staying married for 45 years requires more persistence and dedication than being in industry for 38 years.
Thumbs up.
|
|
|
|
|
Do physicists close the lab for the day and go fission?
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm refusion to answer on the grounds it may incinerate me. Sure, I'm being a bit critical, mass as I wanted to be positive but you nuclearly that it would end up this way.
Ravings en masse^ |
---|
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
If the string is just a theory what kind of hook would you use?
I may not be that good looking, or athletic, or funny, or talented, or smart
I forgot where I was going with this but I do know I love bacon!
|
|
|
|
|
...and is the favourite fast food of the computer literate physicists, Fission Chips?
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
U238 know that works Fermi!
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Instead of worms do they use a newt on the end of the hook?
Socialism is the Axe Body Spray of political ideologies: It never does what it claims to do, but people too young to know better keep buying it anyway. (Glenn Reynolds)
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's 6hp LESS than mine at the crank. The HP numbers the auto manufacturers provide are the results of running the engine on an ENGINE dyno (crank HP). Subtract %15 from the numbers they brag about to account for parasitic drivetrain loss, and you get 595HP at the rear wheels. I've only ever measured mine on a chassis dyno, and it came out to 600hp at the wheels.
Keep in mind that my car's engine wasn't built to take advantage of forced induction (I would need to lower the compression from it's current 10.5:1 to no more than 9:1), and that would cost about $3k to do. If I were to do it, I could add another 4-5 pounsds of boost, which would add about 200hp at the crank, which would result in about 685 at the wheels.
It sounds like it's pretty impressive, so it's all good.
For the record, I think the 2015-20 GT350 is an all-around better car for the street than the GT500 is. To be honest, I wish I had spent my money on a GT350 instead of building my car. It would have cost half as much.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010 ----- You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010 ----- When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
modified 14-Jan-19 11:22am.
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: To be honest, I wish I had spent my money on a GT350 instead of building my car. It would have cost half as much.
But admit it - it would have been much less fun.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well there's always your next car I suppose.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|