2nd Law of Thermodynamics is Wrong

democrates

Bear with me please.
The example I was given is that a volcano does not explode and spew out a fully operational Boeing 747, because in nature things tend to go from order to disorder.

(For one where did all the order come from then? But that's not even the point, freak of the big bang I'll give you that.)

Is it not the case that in a chaotic system where nothing seems to be predictable that the one certainty is that of all the chaotic interactions of energy forces, that some will have persistant consequences, such as matter?

Statistically then, it is only a question of time before these persistant 'higher order' states interact and cause higher orders again, all the way up to glorious humans and beyond... (raised on b movies, degree of latitude appreciated).

The crux is that this concept of chaos is predicated on the uncertainty engine if you will, that energy doesn't just calm down and repel all other energy so that we have a universe of dark energy, rather, there is something happening we have not yet perceived which causes randomness.

I'm not confusing this with Huygens uncertainty principle which seems to be more about our ignorance btw.

Have I got the 2nd Law all wrong? Feedback most welcome, I'd like to wrap this one up before beddie byes if possible.

nesf

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has more to do with our concept of measurement than our ignorance.

The rest of your post didn't make a lot of sense to me. That might be down to me being tired though. I'll take another look at it tomorrow.

democrates

Thanks for the reply nesf.

I get what you're saying about Heisenbergs uncertainty principle being about measurement, the fact that you can measure the momentum or position of a subatomic particle but you can't measure both precisely means we are left with uncertainty when we try to predict cause and effect at the quantum scale. I'm being a bit flippant calling that our ignorance.

Of course just because we are currently uncertain doesn't mean their is no certainty around these phenomena if only we had the detectors to measure it or intellectual capacity to understand it.

The post overall is the idea that if randomness plays a part at the quantum level or below so that we do not have cause and effect alone, then the second law of thermodynamics is wrong, as it depends on total causality.

Matter is simply energy behaving in a certain way, e=mc2. Once earth wind fire and water were 'the elements'. Then their were atoms. Then atomic particles. Now sub atomic particles. We really need to pick an open ended term at the next level down. The trend so far is that there are more forms to be seen and more rules of interaction the smaller we can see. Who's to say how far down this goes, everything is made of something, how can anything be indivisible? Excepting that damn coconut I got last haloween.

Regardless of how far down energy forms appear, the question arises as to what rules the energy forms obey, and in particular if such a thing as physical randomness exists (as opposed to us calling things random simply because we can't predict outcomes).

If their really are random events as well as causal events, then their is a constant timeline of new situations. If in one of these situations a blob of energy plasma in the correct dimensions and momentum happens to occur, that could form a muon which lasts for a while. Say a few of these and other persistant energy formations come together in the right way, that causes an electron, a neutron, a proton and in time because the randomness keeps throwing things up in different arrangements, we have Hydrogen. We know all atoms eventually decay due to some small force, like the sea wearing down a stone, they are not eternal, but have some persistance.

From atoms we get molecules and proteins, then a bolt of lightening and we have life itself. A high order of persistance. Most of these would 'die', end of story, but then it only takes one with the property of self-replication to take us to the next level. This need only have happened once to give rise to all life on earth as per Darwin.

So from a statistics point of view if you have a mix of causality and randomness within the heart of the energy from the big bang, you are likely to see increased levels of order. Hence the second law of thermodynamics would be wrong, like Newtons Laws of Motion, good enough for rough work at large scales, but a bum steer in the tiny realm and no basis to predict a bleak future for the universe.

Spear

democrates wrote:

Have I got the 2nd Law all wrong? Feedback most welcome, I'd like to wrap this one up before beddie byes if possible.

Yes, you've got it all wrong. You seem to be confusing with bits of chaos theory.

There's a nice simple statement of the laws here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics

I'm not confusing this with Huygens uncertainty principle which seems to be more about our ignorance btw.

No, it isn't.

Talliesin

Spear wrote:

There's a nice simple statement of the laws here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics

There's a nice complicated statement of the law in Arcadia by Tom Stoppard (great play).

Spear

Talliesin wrote:

There's a nice complicated statement of the law in Arcadia by Tom Stoppard (great play).

Don't know it, unless it's the can't profit, can't breakeven etc. one.

nesf

Play nice spear. Expand your answers a bit please

Spear

nesf wrote:

Play nice spear. Expand your answers a bit please

Aw, I was hoping to leave it as an excercise for the student.

Nevertheless

democrates wrote:

The example I was given is that a volcano does not explode and spew out a fully operational Boeing 747, because in nature things tend to go from order to disorder.

A bad example then as the second law applies to closed systems, a volcano isn't since it'd tend to release heat and mass out the top periodically.

Is it not the case that in a chaotic system where nothing seems to be predictable that the one certainty is that of all the chaotic interactions of energy forces, that some will have persistant consequences, such as matter?

No, everything decays, even matter, including protons, though their half-life is something like 10^31 years or so.

Statistically then, it is only a question of time before these persistant 'higher order' states interact and cause higher orders again, all the way up to glorious humans and beyond... (raised on b movies, degree of latitude appreciated).

Only in the short term, everything decays.

The crux is that this concept of chaos is predicated on the uncertainty engine if you will, that energy doesn't just calm down and repel all other energy so that we have a universe of dark energy, rather, there is something happening we have not yet perceived which causes randomness.

I can't figure what this bit is supposed to be referring to.

I'm not confusing this with Huygens uncertainty principle which seems to be more about our ignorance btw.

It is not about ignorance. The HUP states the absolute limits of the information that can be known about something, and no process or experiment or interaction can overcome this.

nesf

Cheers spear

It wasn't so much a critisism of you're earlier post. It was just that I'm trying to encourage people to put more explanation in their posts rather than just links.

In a perfect world links would be enough. But the world is full of lazy people who just skim read posts and don't click on links. That and you have to think of (on here) that threads are just browsed by intersted people who might not be inclined to go through links on sites but who would happily read through a thread itself.

I hope that makes sense of some kind.

Spear

nesf wrote:

Cheers spear

It wasn't so much a critisism of you're earlier post. It was just that I'm trying to encourage people to put more explanation in their posts rather than just links.

In a perfect world links would be enough. But the world is full of lazy people who just skim read posts and don't click on links. That and you have to think of (on here) that threads are just browsed by intersted people who might not be inclined to go through links on sites but who would happily read through a thread itself.

I hope that makes sense of some kind.

It was a criticism, and a justified one. Simple saying "no, you're wrong" isn't going to enlighten him. Then again it was all I could manage at 6am before going to the daily drudgery.

Turdle

nesf wrote:

Cheers spear
It was just that I'm trying to encourage people to put more explanation in their posts rather than just links.

Agreed nesf. Threads shouldn't be a readers digest of the web but rather a discussion of peoples interpretation of the subject. Well, in cases such as this anyway.

Back to the topic. Some physicists now believe that quantum mechanics is merely a statistic/probability analysis of the deeper workings of reality on the sub-quantum scale but that we don’t have the means to make observations nor the mathematical models (lets face it) to make accurate predictions on that scale. So mabey democrates was right, but for all the wrong reasons.

Also, if the critical mass of the universe is enough so that it eventually starts to collapse in on itself, then this means that all matter and energy in the universe would move to a more orderly state, contradicting the second law. Although recent observations "suggest" that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, the point is that it seems that all it would take in order to break the second law of thermodynamics is to have enough matter in the universe to cause the big crush. Of course the laws of physics as we know them break down in a singularity, and the big crush would be one hell of a singularity.

fortysixand2

Tending, as I do when speaking on these topics, to ramble off onto a hundred things and forget my original topic, I'll focus on what I see as the one main problem point here (Apart from the closed system one, but spear's already covered that).

Is it not the case that in a chaotic system where nothing seems to be predictable that the one certainty is that of all the chaotic interactions of energy forces, that some will have persistant consequences, such as matter?

This sounds very much like where you're going wrong on your understanding. This is a very flawed assumption. Any interaction, between matter/matter, matter/energy or whatnot, uses up a portion of ordered energy which is dispersed as heat (unordered energy). In order to convert this back to ORDERED energy, more ordered energy must be spent to convert it back, although most of it is often simply lost. In the absence of a significant "converter" of some kind, the closed system eventually will end up as uniform unordered energy, heat in other words.

No significant naturally-occuring interactions have been observed where there is an overall net gain of ordered energy (that I know of, at least, if I'm wrong do enlighten me ), and the artificial methods we have available now leave much to be desired in terms of the 2nd Law.

Um. Now, I hope that wasn't too nonsensical for twent past five in the morning Night!

democrates

In the absence of a significant "converter" of some kind, the closed system eventually will end up as uniform unordered energy, heat in other words.

Good point fortysixand2, can energy can do something 'random' and thereby reverse entropy? In a closed system the answer seems to be an inescapable no.

When Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle was debated Einstien said God doesn't play dice with the universe (Bohr famously countered that Einstien shouldn't tell God what to do with his dice). For determinists the idea that something random can happen in the physical world is heresy.

But I've done a bit of googling since my first post. Consider eleven dimensional string theory. This purports to unify the five string theories of quantum physicists trying to describe the building blocks of the universe as strings in ten dimensions (9 spatial + 1 temporal), with the super gravity theory of cosmologists which seeks to explain the big bang in eleven dimensions.

The theory is that our universe is a membrane existing in the 11 dimensional multiverse, and that their are any number of membranes out there, each with their own laws of physics. The big bang could be explained by two membranes colliding, and time did not start then, it came straight through as a continuing dimension. The weakness of gravity compared with the other forces could also be explained if it leaks to our universe from another membrane.

The multiverse of membranes is not a placid place either, these membranes riripple and move about. So if gravity is leaking to this universe from another membrane, it could be doing so in a way that obeys the laws of physics of that universe. Or some of the other forces could be similarly modulated.

What we call uncertainty may not simply be our inability to measure both the direction and momentum of a particle, but that particle may in fact be influenced by the laws of physics of a parallel universe. From the point of view of the physics of our world, we see random events, but if we knew the physics of the parallel universe we could regain certainty.

Though our universe is not a closed system under M theory and the predictions for the death of this universe based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics is interrupted by the vagaries of parallel universes, the 2nd law still sounds good at the multiverse level if it is a closed system. (Of course Socrates would no doubt ask me to explain how I knew this for certain, and then where this multiverse came from, and what is outside it).

I wonder also if this might explain Nicolai Teslas fascinating experiments in radiant energy. He once built a machine that issued abrupt electrostatic discharges and set the entire planets electrical charge in oscillation, a ship posted on the far side claimed a calm sea suddenly began to rise and fall in great waves. The discharges caused a release of 'radiant energy' from the ether, so would allow anyone anywhere to tap into free power.

The web is peppered with people claiming to have built 'free energy' devices that appear to give more energy out than is put in, I even saw a documentary where a fire station was allegedly saving a fortune using an 'over unity generator'. The whole idea has been so outrageous that respectable scientists would be reluctant to admit to research, and there are a bunch of conspiracy theorists pointing the finger at oppresive vested interests making it even less respectable.

Wouldn't it be nice to see Teslas work revisited in the light of parallel universes?
Appreciate all feedback, for now the pub beckons.

Spear

democrates wrote:

When Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle was debated Einstien said God doesn't play dice with the universe (Bohr famously countered that Einstien shouldn't tell God what to do with his dice). For determinists the idea that something random can happen in the physical world is heresy.

Bohr also said that electrons flew around nuclei in little circles, so he's probably not the best person to quote.

But I've done a bit of googling since my first post. Consider eleven dimensional string theory. This purports to unify the five string theories of quantum physicists trying to describe the building blocks of the universe as strings in ten dimensions (9 spatial + 1 temporal), with the super gravity theory of cosmologists which seeks to explain the big bang in eleven dimensions.

The theory is that our universe is a membrane existing in the 11 dimensional multiverse, and that their are any number of membranes out there, each with their own laws of physics. The big bang could be explained by two membranes colliding, and time did not start then, it came straight through as a continuing dimension. The weakness of gravity compared with the other forces could also be explained if it leaks to our universe from another membrane.

The multiverse of membranes is not a placid place either, these membranes riripple and move about. So if gravity is leaking to this universe from another membrane, it could be doing so in a way that obeys the laws of physics of that universe. Or some of the other forces could be similarly modulated.

String theory and variants such as m-theory do not constitute full scientific theories as they are not falsifiable. Right now they're just faniciful thinking.

What we call uncertainty may not simply be our inability to measure both the direction and momentum of a particle, but that particle may in fact be influenced by the laws of physics of a parallel universe. From the point of view of the physics of our world, we see random events, but if we knew the physics of the parallel universe we could regain certainty.

A.k.a hidden variables theory, discounted long ago.

Though our universe is not a closed system under M theory and the predictions for the death of this universe based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics is interrupted by the vagaries of parallel universes, the 2nd law still sounds good at the multiverse level if it is a closed system. (Of course Socrates would no doubt ask me to explain how I knew this for certain, and then where this multiverse came from, and what is outside it).

We'd also like to know how you know this for certain given the complete lack of evidence produced by you.

I wonder also if this might explain Nicolai Teslas fascinating experiments in radiant energy. He once built a machine that issued abrupt electrostatic discharges and set the entire planets electrical charge in oscillation, a ship posted on the far side claimed a calm sea suddenly began to rise and fall in great waves. The discharges caused a release of 'radiant energy' from the ether, so would allow anyone anywhere to tap into free power.

These also came from that page
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/sylphandchemtrailindex.shtml
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/projectbluebeam25jul05.shtml
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/planetXsequel15jul;04.shtml
and help to put things into perspective.

The web is peppered with people claiming to have built 'free energy' devices that appear to give more energy out than is put in, I even saw a documentary where a fire station was allegedly saving a fortune using an 'over unity generator'. The whole idea has been so outrageous that respectable scientists would be reluctant to admit to research, and there are a bunch of conspiracy theorists pointing the finger at oppresive vested interests making it even less respectable.

And now you find yourself in the company of such cranks and liars by claiming the second law is wrong without a single shred of evidence.

nesf

M theory has no validity as a scientific theory and I don't see it's point in this discussion. It's not necessary.

Also, it's a hell of a lot more complicated than just "11 dimensions" and "multiverses" just to start with. Ever stop and think about why it's a topic that only a very small number of people in the world can fully grasp?

I fail to see why you are resorting to such theory in order to explain a simple thermodynamic law. Your issues with it seem to stem from you taking it out of context rather than it not fitting into the physical model of the world.


That site, look maybe you didn't realise this but that site (educate-yourself.org) is complete garbage. I recommend not going reading there again. Unless you want a laugh.

Instead of Googling, start here: Wiki Physics. It's a good page, with reliable links to non-wiki pages if you want to explore a particular topic in more depth.

Of particular interest to you is:

2nd Law (Entropy): It is impossible to obtain a process that, operating in cycle, produces no other effect than the subtraction of a positive amount of heat from a reservoir and the production of an equal amount of work. (Kelvin-Planck Statement)

The entropy of a thermally isolated macroscopic system never decreases (see Maxwell's demon), however a microscopic system may exhibit fluctuations of entropy opposite to that dictated by the second law (see Fluctuation Theorem). In fact the mathematical proof of the Fluctuation Theorem from time-reversible dynamics and the Axiom of Causality, constitutes a proof of the Second Law. In a logical sense the Second Law thus ceases to be a "Law" of Physics and instead becomes a theorem which is valid for large systems or long times.

Don't believe everything you read. Use common sense.

fortysixand2

@democrates: Um . . . okay, I don't know WHERE that post came from.

M theory is pretty. That is all it is currently, a pretty thing with no real value in terms of actually proving anything. I don't know if you've ever heard of the concept of Occam's Razor before?

democrates wrote:

So if gravity is leaking to this universe from another membrane, it could be doing so in a way that obeys the laws of physics of that universe. Or some of the other forces could be similarly modulated.

Yet once it enters our universe it becomes subject to our physical laws. In terms of the laws of physics, the container defines the parameters the contents can fit to

PhantomBeaker

democrates wrote:

The web is peppered with people claiming to have built 'free energy' devices that appear to give more energy out than is put in, I even saw a documentary where a fire station was allegedly saving a fortune using an 'over unity generator'. The whole idea has been so outrageous that respectable scientists would be reluctant to admit to research, and there are a bunch of conspiracy theorists pointing the finger at oppresive vested interests making it even less respectable.

I'm not one to normally just quote random TV programmes, but have you watched that episode of Mythbusters? They took a good deal of "free energy" ideas from the internet and decided to try them out - not a single one that they tried worked. Even when they did get some sort of result, they were getting less energy than they were putting in - it was net loss.

Anyway, we don't even need to use the laws of thermodynamics to tell you that will fail - the law of conservation of energy is enough.

And as for

So if gravity is leaking to this universe from another membrane, it could be doing so in a way that obeys the laws of physics of that universe. Or some of the other forces could be similarly modulated.

I'll just put fortysixand2's post into the framework of simple n-dimensional maths for you. If M theory holds, and we are a membrane of however many other dimensions - we are still a subspace of that greater space. If we are a subspace, then no vectors within that space may suddenly exceed the confines of that space.

Simple example - take 3 dimensions. Now if you're to draw something in 2 dimensions (like on piece of paper or a screen), it still fits into 3-space. BUT NO combination of 2-dimensional vectors (i.e. no matter what you draw on that piece of paper) will you get a 3-dimensional vector out of it. Same applies to M-space and a subspace of N dimenstions (where N < M). If we are dealing with a true subspace, which is a prerequisite of your argument, then 2 vectors that differ only in the base outside this subspace are considered to be the same vector.

i.e. in R3 if we have v1 = (4,2,0) and v2=(4,2,5) obviously v1 != v2, but in R2 if we take only the first two bases of the vector, then v1 = v2.

What I'm trying to say is that bases of any n-dimensional space, are by their very definition independent of each other... so any dimensions outside the scope of this 'membrane' (or subspace) simply become irrelavent because they don't fall within the scope of the subspace. Yes, it counts in the superspace, but if the scope of the subspace doesn't include it, it's not relavent.

So, even if a vector doesn't fit - it's MADE to fit (in OOP terms it's like casting a subclass as the superclass) - the information that isn't relavent is just discarded.

In fact, I'd say, it's one of the few cases where covering your eyes and ears with your hands and shouting "Nya nya nya, I can't see or hear you, you're not there" actually works.

Take care,
P.B.

democrates

Back from the pub. Hic!

Bohr also said that electrons flew around nuclei in little circles, so he's probably not the best person to quote.

Ah spear. Just because a person is right or wrong about one thing doesn't mean they are right or wrong about everything. Such extrapolated plausibility profiling may be expedient but not rigorous evaluation, imho.

String theory and variants such as m-theory do not constitute full scientific theories as they are not falsifiable. Right now they're just faniciful thinking.

If something is neither provable nor falsifiable perhaps one ought to keep an open mind, for to choose to believe one theory or another in the absence of incontrovertible proof either way is fanciful thinking, or simply put, faith. Copernicus was not falsifiable according to his 'peers', but that didn't mean he wasn't right.

A.k.a hidden variables theory, discounted long ago.

You can bet your boots it's back on the 11 dimensional table now. Watch this space John von Neumann.

We'd also like to know how you know this for certain given the complete lack of evidence produced by you.

Ha ha! Ah me auld hearty. Boards.ie and you're asking me for evidence of M theory? You're joshing of course (...?). Aren't I allowed to theorise? Free speech or something? Besides, I'm certain of nothing.

But you spear, and nesc raise a good point about the plausibility of online resources. Nature et al employ wealth restricted publishing policies, and this impedes the public (we the goddamn people!) from engaging in discourse supported by any scientific evidence. If you know of any reputable open scientific paper publishing sites let me know please.

And now you find yourself in the company of such cranks and liars by claiming the second law is wrong without a single shred of evidence.

In essence, I'm agreeing with the 2nd law of thermodynamics as a reasonable posit, so long as their is such a thing as a closed system. But that remains the point, is there? Is there nothing outside this universe that can affect it? If there is a multiverse, is there something outside that? To choose to believe one way or another in the absence of proof one way or another is pure faith.

Determinism itself is therefore faith as much as believing in God is, as there is no reason to assume all we have seen is all there is to be seen. The turbulent history of changing scientific 'truths' would suggest that the only loyalty we should have is to the search for truth, not currently held truths.

And that goes for the 2nd law too.

democrates

PhantomBeaker, just read your post.

Is it possible for a parallel universe to affect this one? It can have it's laws of physics, we can have ours. The multiverse is the superset.

If as you say our universe requires our laws of physics, does that not simply mean that a vector from a parallel universe entering ours simply switches into compliance when it gets here?

And does that still leave the door open for random events from our universes perspective, as our quantum world cannot predict where and when a leak-through vector may arise?

nesf

Democrates, less preaching more reasoning mate. I'll chalk it upto drink this time, but this is not a place to preach from the pulpit mate. Posting on here after a few in the pub might not be the best plan. Alcohol and physical discussion seldom mix well online


For papers, tbh, I've never heard or come across any reliable free site for scientific papers. Digests of them sure (Sci Am etc) but not the full things. Plus, physics papers are not readable generally to lay people. Without sufficient training, formal or otherwise, you would not find them useful to you imho. I don't think it's worth the premium to read full papers unless you can make full use out of them.

If you want to have a look at nature etc, go to your local city library, they sometimes stock them. If you have access to a college library with a science department then the journals will be in there. I don't know how access goes from college to college though. I've never had to access them as a non student.

democrates wrote:

Determinism itself is therefore faith as much as believing in God is, as there is no reason to assume all we have seen is all there is to be seen. The turbulent history of changing scientific 'truths' would suggest that the only loyalty we should have is to the search for truth, not currently held truths.

That has no place on here. It does have a place in philosophy though, and at the moment we're discussing the philosophy of science over there and you might find the thread interesting.

Linkage: Philosophy of Science. The boards.ie perspective

(We're still trying to figure out where exactly the philosophy of sciences fits forum wise. Atm it's philosophy, this may change pending discussion.)

In essence, I'm agreeing with the 2nd law of thermodynamics as a reasonable posit, so long as their is such a thing as a closed system.

See, a closed system is just an approximate model not an actual thing. There is no such thing as a closed system at human level. Yet many things act as if they were within reasonable accuracy requirements.

You're blurring the line between theories and reality. Theories are just imaginary constructs that describe or approximate reality. There are not reality in themselves.

Again, this is more philosophy than physics.

fortysixand2

@democrates: You're assuming that you can simply draw a vector from one parallel universe to another. The very act of doing so requires it be translated from one subset to the other.

Also, such "leak-through vectors," as you call them, would by their nature manifest as wormholes - and natural wormholes, by the very quantum laws you're touting, are unbelievably transient entities. They appear and disappear from the "foam" that makes up space on a quantum level in almost immeasurably small periods, and are microns in diameter. Space at those dimensions seethes with energy, and any effect that they have could almost be seen as vanishing into the existing quantum unpredictability there is on that level.

Also, I must say at this point, you seem to be taking a very authoritative tone in your posts for someone with apparently no - or at best, transient - pre-grounding in the subject. And your last two posts came across as EXTREMELY strange, the repsonse to PhantomBeaker seems to contradict your initial point and your response to nesf seems to imply you're only debating this for the sake of stirring the pot. Also, once again I'll direct you to Occam's Razor. While it's all well and good to say we've not seen all there is to be seen, it doesn't instantly mean that unsupported theories have any place in a discussion like this. You initially asked for a scientific debate on the topic, but bringing in unproven theories to support your point is in direct contradiction to the scientific method . . .

nesf

I do not want this to turn into a flame war, and anyone caught up in one will recieve a week ban from this board. Regardless of which side they are on (ie even if I agree with them).

I will not tolerate posters attacking posters on this board. Attack his post, that's fine, but please be polite about it.

This isn't a warning per sae, I'm just trying to stop this before it starts. I can see this getting ugly.

Hopefully, I'm totally wrong and this post wasn't necessary.

And now I'm going to go to sleep.

fortysixand2

*raises hands* Sorry nesf Wasn't trying to flame, but those points did strike me as odd is all.

Son Goku

The whole vector argument is a little irrelevant guys.
In String Theory, any vector would be set in curved spaces (Calabi-Yau) spaces and mightn't necessarily have constant basis vectors.
You're talking notions of Euclidean vectors into a theory which attempts to move beyond General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory.

There are two ways to look at entropy, mainly from a thermodynamic point of view and a information theoretic point of view.
I'll post up more later.

democrates

Apologies if I was out of line there folks, nesf you're right, no posting with alcohol taken, I have a tendancy to get scrappy and bordering on personal, but no upset intended, and for the record respect is implicit, though I may have given the opposite impression.

It's also true fortysixand2 I've no credentials to justify authoritative sounding posts, I've no delusions here, it looks like I need to change my habit of making a blunt statement where a question is appropriate. I'll work harder on my social skills.

Also thanks for sharing the wealth, my knowledge on the topic has already improved thanks to you all, and wikipedia is amazing. My contradictions reflect the learning process, I see that as a good thing, if a position doesn't hold up I'll drop it straight away. Glad I got broadband, didn't quite anticipate these benefits, should be in the brochures!

The philosophy thread is interesting nesf. Now that I think of it, I find myself gravitating towards any argument which dilutes absolute determinism. I guess underneath it all I'm trying to do that because I want to believe in free will and therefore justice. That said, the voyage of scientific discovery is still on the cards, I don't want to simply throw in the towel to faith.

So let me get back to seeking light rather than generating heat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle :

Within the widely but not universally accepted Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is taken to mean that on an elementary level, the physical universe does not exist in a deterministic form—but rather as a collection of probabilities, or potentials.

Hands up, I don't understand the underlying physics, but those who do seem to be saying that random things do happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#Entropy_and_cosmology

The role of entropy in cosmology remains a controversial subject. Recent work has cast extensive doubt on the heat death hypothesis and the applicability of any simple thermodynamical model to the universe in general. Although entropy does increase in an expanding universe, the maximum possible entropy rises much more rapidly and leads to an "entropy gap," thus pushing the system further away from equilibrium with each time increment. Complicating factors, such as the energy density of the vacuum and macroscopic quantum effects, are difficult to reconcile with thermodynamical models, making any predictions of large-scale thermodynamics extremely difficult.

Ok, that's not the same as jumping to the conclusion that the 2nd law is wrong. But what about the rest of my earlier post:

Regardless of how far down energy forms appear, the question arises as to what rules the energy forms obey, and in particular if such a thing as physical randomness exists (as opposed to us calling things random simply because we can't predict outcomes).

If their really are random events as well as causal events, then their is a constant timeline of new situations. If in one of these situations a blob of energy plasma in the correct dimensions and momentum happens to occur, that could form a muon which lasts for a while. Say a few of these and other persistant energy formations come together in the right way, that causes an electron, a neutron, a proton and in time because the randomness keeps throwing things up in different arrangements, we have Hydrogen. We know all atoms eventually decay due to some small force, like the sea wearing down a stone, they are not eternal, but have some persistance.

From atoms we get molecules and proteins, then a bolt of lightening and we have life itself. A high order of persistance. Most of these would 'die', end of story, but then it only takes one with the property of self-replication to take us to the next level. This need only have happened once to give rise to all life on earth as per Darwin.

So from a statistics point of view if you have a mix of causality and randomness within the heart of the energy from the big bang, you are likely to see increased levels of order. Hence the second law of thermodynamics would be wrong, like Newtons Laws of Motion, good enough for rough work at large scales, but a bum steer in the tiny realm and no basis to predict a bleak future for the universe.

Maybe there's a better analogy: If random patterns of dots were drawn on pages repeatedly, eventually a pattern of three equidistant dots would arise, like the corners of an equilateral triangle. A subset of all patterns of dots are ones that have order.

In the physical world, if uncertainty means we keep getting random particle positions and momentums, then a subset are those which give rise to higher order composite structures. Hence an electron, proton, and neutron come together to make hydrogen, and so on up the order tree to life itself.

Does this hold water?

nesf

democrates wrote:

Apologies if I was out of line there folks, nesf you're right, no posting with alcohol taken, I have a tendancy to get scrappy and bordering on personal, but no upset intended, and for the record respect is implicit, though I may have given the opposite impression.

No problem. You're new here. Just takes a while to get into it.


Oh and wikipedia is a great site. Not a substitute for actual textbooks on topics but brilliant for getting your feet wet.