Why is there an inevitable increase in entropy when the laws of physics are invariant under time reversal? The time reversal symmetry of physical laws appears to contradict the second law of thermodynamics
Advanced wave solutions that permit T-symmetry do contradict the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which also lead to the flow of information backwards in time. It is apparent however on the macroscopic level that irreversible processes take place inevitably increasing the entropy of the universe. But if information from such irreversible processes were flowing backwards in time influencing matter from that period than entropy would increase thus no contradiction.
eating contradicts the second entanglement or purely deja vu shares the 'information' (experience) going forward in time (consciousness itself provides that evidence; a mind can experience feelings of things that aint happening, in fact (precognition)) thats a word salad ie..... the assumption that underlies that concept is that the universe is expanding and since never in all history has the edge been measured, then there is no proof of that assumption. thus.... the so called educated continue with 'word salad' the best method of comprehending that the existing paradigm is wrong is to observe life 'abusing entropy'. Then it is easy to push the 2LoT into the pirates code as simply a guideline and begin the rework at the root of the mathematical ignorance of 'walking the planck' (the underlying rube to most all of todays physics; plancks constant, which incorporated the 2nd (entropic direction) into 'h') maintain a clear underlying scope; there is no perfect vacuum between any 2 points of mass and from there, observe the entanglement of mass by the energy shared between points in time.
cool piece http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110922082936AAu50B0 but i want to see if anyone can find the funny parts.
Good explanation of the time direction paradox was in Stephen Hawkings book A Brief History of Time. I recommend to everyone interested in the subject, or physics in general, to read that book.
...Or they could watch this vid. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQSoaiubuA0"]How a sandcastle reveals the end of all things - Wonders of the Universe - BBC Two - YouTube[/ame]
that form is based on statistics, not nature. ie..... that form that the brit is ranting is a contradiction to 'conservation' Point; that scope is not about the 2LoT, it is about a figure of disorder versus nature! and a reversal is proven by a life. A life does not exist on disorder and consumes with a progression towards order. Ie.... opposite of the "S" (entropy) of the system.
Professor Brian Cox wasn't ranting, however your contribution lacks clarity. What form of "form" are you talking about??
sorry...... i have looked ot the cox and find the many many many shows are inconsistent with nature and closer to what is accepted. He is like a preacher to the current paradigm of a reductionary scope to physics. Sure he is educated and i like it, but he teaches as if certain 'laws' are fact and 'we' both know they aint. statistics dont care about causality most dont undrstand that statistics can be based on most any query of values sought. He was not describing nature!
Biological systems are not closed systems."New energy" is constantly being put into the biosphere via the sun, and to a much smaller degree our planets interior. Life does nothing to violate the second law.
Postulate (fact by my POV): there is no such thing as a closed system between any 2 points of mass, anywhere within existence. so now, what is your point? I know life eats, it aint random I know there is no closed system i know that a life consumes, but it a progression towards the continuation of the process call life. Nothing reductionary there! the 2nd law is a fine guideline for the steam engine era but energy is not a potential difference as fission/fusion has proved that fact. but few comprehend the implications of what life itself and the evidence of nature has shared; nature does not follow manmade rules. Mankind is learning how nature operates! If the rule of the 2LoT can be broken, then it aint a law, it's a sort of guideline! life: abuses entropy get over it! g
Correct. But on a side note, it seems as though the Law of Degradation (not an actual official law, more like a philosophical law) applies even to open systems; humans have an inevitable aging cycle which leads them to deteriorate gradually; at first slowly, then more quickly, just like a typical gradually deteriorating system, and then die within a short time.
Michio Kaku has a lot to explain in layman's terms. I read as much as I could of Brief History of time. Anyone interested should start with Kaku there's too many pages of Math formulas in Hawkings book. I would be offended as an Agnostic or think it is an arrogant claim that we have no need of God which is supposedly a statement released by Hawking within the last year. But it occurred to me: A real deity in a parental sense would not want us to forever be dependent upon him. He would indeed be happy that we had evolved to such a point. So, Blasphemer's book suggestion but unless you are a math major Hawkings don't read that well. Start with Einstein's own words not people who write their commentary of what Einstein really meant to say. It's just like Bible reading to the religious. Many people read with prejudice of having someone tell them ahead of time and while they are studying - you get all messed up there. OOPS! now i have to look up entropy and maybe get a better idea of the connotation around thermodynamics. Play billiards games while you study physics it's like having a visual aid and it is fun.
That's a great question, Bishadi. Whenever somebody brings up the second law of thermodynamics in this forum, somebody will answer that it only applies to closed systems. I always wondered why nobody asked this obvious follow-up question, but finally, here it is. Pretty much everything inside the universe exchanges at least a few photons every once in a while with its surroundings. Gravity has (within the constraints of causality) unlimited range. It's intuitively clear that we know at best only one closed system - the whole universe. If we're honest, we don't even know what we're really talking about when we say "the whole universe". So, what's the point of an inequality that only applies to a single, vaguely defined object? Starting from today, there will always be more than a hundred atoms in the universe. That's another inequality. Is the second law of thermodynamics just as useless as this the "hundred atoms inequality"? No, the second law is useful, because it also helps us understand systems that are not closed. Put simply, you can do this: 1) Imagine a boundary in between an object you want to examine and its surroundings. 2) Examine all (significant) exchanges of energy, atoms, entropy, or whatever else through that boundary. 3) Combine the effects of those exchanges with rules known for closed systems. 4) Enjoy your results for a system that is not closed (unless you messed up somewhere). That's an engineer's approach to thermodynamics. Your car or fridge are a testimony of its usefulness. The whole point of making a statement for a closed systems is that it can be used for any system, if we know what is being exchanged in between that system and its surroundings. That way, we do not need to know what exactly happens inside that particular system to make useful macroscopic predictions about it.
and yet, in EVERY system the causality supercedes the 2LoT. For example: why is the energy transferring from point A to B "S" is of ignorance to the 'why' ie... the exchange of photons shares what? a) ... the photon is the energy itself between the 2 points (entangled) b) ... that there is a causal reason for the exchange c) ... that energy itself IS misdefined have you ever or has anyone ever seen/observed/found/identified/known even a single 'edge' of the universe, ever? So to sustain that the universe is a closed system is nothing more than a speculation. The concept that the universe is expanding is the ONLY idea that can be used to even remotely sustain that idea of the 2LoT, on a universal basis. but to be honest, if everything began at a single point in time/space and then banged out from that central point, then at each second, that mass would be moving outward, expanding space from that central point. To sustain newtons laws of motion, then the universe would still be moving outward and the slowing would never have occurred to create even one body of mass (planet/star). that inertia of motion would have exceeded every force of nature, and nothing would exist as it is my point is, the focal belief of how the system (universe) operates is the error. Not that nature is wrong but that the laws and calculation are wrong and the proof is when the hubble shared that the rotation of mass within the galaxies does not follow the laws and now dark matter/energy had to be created within the scope of the math to correct the errors of the mathematical predictions that is a fact i agree BEC of rubidium proves that within the 1000 atoms (approx) within the traps, that the laws DO NOT APPLY how about using simplicity: what is the 'heat' of a hot piece of iron and why do the photon (energy itself) move from the hot to the cold? it aint because of entropy ie..... you hit the nail on the head: the second is not the law, but a guideline. That is what i noticed as the error to the foundation to the physics of nature! I have come to find out, that entropy or the 2LoT is moot when causality is pursued and purely found to be rediculous when maintaining the 1st law of thermodynamics of conservation. there is no magical 'intent' to equilibrate (S) as the rule to nature and living things are proof positive, simply at face value. ie.... the instinct to live of all life, is about as pure to nature as any guideline to comprehend that 'life: abuses entropy' across the board. ALL life once started INTENDS to continue, in fact!
The second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to an expanding universe, so we think thus far. As the universe expands photons are red-shifted meaning their wavelengths increase and thus there energy decreases. So, photons appear to have no energy conservation.
1. Nobody has attempted to hear your question, less to answer. 2. laws of physics are invariant under time reversal only in science everyone is following here. In reality no law of physics makes such a statement. Thus your question is illiterate and thus it belongs to science. 3. in reality all givers of the laws of physics made the statement that laws of physics are invariant in any place of the universe. The last time such a statement was made by A. Einstein in the text of the theory of relativity. 4. Thermodynamics makes the statement that all processes of transformation of energy ( and thus all processes) are irreversible in nature. Scientists got it all wrong. Travel and time is impossible. Spontaneous or local increase of the thermodynamic order is impossible anywhere in nature. Scientists got it all wrong. Scientists confuse geometrical order with the thermodynamic order when these are 2 different and even opposite things. P.S. scientists cannot describe, less identify, less make a thermodynamic system. No matter if the universe is oval, round or square, or locked or closed, or opened, laws of physics are invariant and all systems in nature are open. P.P.S. if it was not for the man, all nuclear elements in the earth would proceed to decay in quite boring and peaceful way. The man wakes up in the morning, has an input of calories of a cup of coffee and a cigarette, pushes a button and outputs a nuclear explosion moving the moon or another celestial body out of its orbit. Appearance such an efficient beast is not a result or an act of any known, less drawn laws of physics. It is a single known and observed (not theorized) act against laws of physics and thus it still stands as supernatural.
If scientists have it all wrong who has it all right? Flying fire-breathing unicorns? Oh and btw many laws of physics are time invariant. See CPT-Symmetry.
there it the okey dokey model again. ie..... energy (photon) changes wavelengths because of mass ahhhh dahhhhh
mankind does not consists of only parasites, scientists and their pipe dreams like Flying fire-breathing unicorns, vacuum fluctuations, black holes, virtual particles, parallel universes, etc. Then there would be very little difference between the mankind and apes, as scientists claim even if nobody has seen an ape overriding protection of a nuclear reactor like in Chernobyl. "invariant under time reversal" was the OP claim. I already went on this road with you. I intended to keep that tread floating, but BFSmith advised not to throw pearls before pigs. may be he can find it in archives. when you were pointed that you misword laws of t-cs, cannot see the difference between working body and a thermodynamic system you went on your four. see the 2nd law and all other laws of of physics, no exclusions.
thanks. quote: You keep repeating this kindergarten argument, the sleeve joker of scientists and atheists. Oh, sure. Go away scientists and atheists. Stop starting and finishing all conversations with the same statement, - you Xn are too stupid and ignorant to understand what we scientist are saying, we are not going to type dictionary for you”. I cannot convert even most decent a reasonable people, only God can, but I can for sure make them to grow disgusted by the company of scientists and atheists. end of quote. quoted from here: http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/227797-basic-bottom-line-argument-god-12.html you are all the same. Just go.
