Entropy

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[fayefaye]

what do u expect?

[Dyrwen]

Just hijacking whatever the hell you meant in this thread. :)

Entropy
by MC Hawking

Trash Talk
Harm me with harmony.
Doomsday, drop a load on 'em.

Verse 1
Entropy, how can I explain it? I'll take it frame by frame it,
to have you all jumping, shouting saying it.
Let's just say that it's a measure of disorder,
in a system that is closed, like with a border.
It's sorta, like a, well a measurement of randomness,
proposed in 1850 by a German, but wait I digress.
"What the **** is entropy?", I here the people still exclaiming,
it seems I gotta start the explaining.

You ever drop an egg and on the floor you see it break?
You go and get a mop so you can clean up your mistake.
But did you ever stop to ponder why we know it's true,
if you drop a broken egg you will not get an egg that's new.

That's entropy or E-N-T-R-O to the P to the Y,
the reason why the sun will one day all burn out and die.
Order from disorder is a scientific rarity,
allow me to explain it with a little bit more clarity.
Did I say rarity? I meant impossibility,
at least in a closed system there will always be more entropy.
That's entropy and I hope that you're all down with it,
if you are here's your membership.

Chorus
You down with entropy?
Yeah, you know me! (x3)
Who's down with entropy?
Every last homey!

Verse 2
Defining entropy as disorder's not complete,
'cause disorder as a definition doesn't cover heat.
So my first definition I would now like to withdraw,
and offer one that fits thermodynamics second law.
First we need to understand that entropy is energy,
energy that can't be used to state it more specifically.
In a closed system entropy always goes up,
that's the second law, now you know what's up.

You can't win, you can't break even, you can't leave the game,
'cause entropy will take it all 'though it seems a shame.
The second law, as we now know, is quite clear to state,
that entropy must increase and not dissipate.

Creationists always try to use the second law,
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system' it's powered by the sun,
so **** the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!
That, in a nutshell, is what entropy's about,
you're now down with a discount.

Chorus

Trash Talk
Hit it!
Doomsday, kick it in!

http://www.mchawking.com/multimedia.php?page_function=mp3z

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[sloegin]

As much as I hate to say it...I'm guessing GE will stumble on to it.

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[sloegin]

GE, starts everything. The horror, when you realize how many things they've got a hand.
OPEC, has in an underground warehouse in Antarctica.

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[sloegin]

I understand.

Here (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2568084521&category=4661) is something, along the same lines. Something doesn't seem right in it, though.

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[sloegin]

I am Warren Buffett. I'll take two, please.

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[sloegin]

Sure there would. Mass production.

I just saw the laser thing. It wouldn't suprise me. If you tune your strobe light to 8Hz a second, it will disorient you, more so.

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[Munro]

I have a computer chip in my ear lobe, recording and transmitting every dissenting thing I say, watching me, making sure I never amount to any influential position.

One day all of us who have said 'stuff' here will be executed, one by one. I really believe that. I'm gonna go talk to my Eschelon friend now.

[fayefaye]

ok, what's a maxwell's demon?

[sloegin]

A system in which no energy is lost. That is the easiest answer.

[fayefaye]

but energy is supposed to be conserved in a closed system. in any system, actually.. but u have to take into account all the lost heat. but what does that have to do with my post? my point was that humans can never change the laws of thermodynamics-so what? they just keep trying. useless really. personally, i kinda like entropy. even on a molecular level, the world tends to greater disorder. a metaphor for life. humans try to organise it.. in a tragically futile attempt. i wonder what it would be like if everything tended to less entropy-more order. (well, we'd all be dead for one thing.. )

[sloegin]

A Maxwell Demon, is a system, in which no energy is lost to heat.

[fayefaye]

so where energy does not transform into lower forms? in other words, an impossibility?

[sloegin]

A contradiction.

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[sloegin]

The way I understand the gremlin is: in a box with a partition. Running around separating the molecules, namely the faster from the slower. In the attempt to find a more economical use of the energy provided.

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[sloegin]

Yeah. I just prefer the image of a little guy running around, it's more entertaining.

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[sloegin]

Nope, only GR and M&D. I'm gonna try to get to it by the end of the year.

[sloegin]

Was it GR like in scope?

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[sloegin]

Fun. I'll bump it up on my list.

[fayefaye]

But.. hmm.. i don't think they ever would return to their half of the container and leave a vacuum on the other side. not ideal gases. maybe not even real gases. that would require them to develop intermolecular forces, which would require them to come close enough together for them to develop these forces. the only way to get ALL the molecules together on one half like that -even for a microsecond- would be to cool the box-the system down enough for molecules to reform their dispersion forces. (or possibly other forces if it's a different compound vapourised and maintained at constant high temperature). but then that would require the enrtopy of the surroundings to increase, and since total entropy of both surroundings and system has increased, this is constant with the second law. .. random straight line motion. that's what gases are supposed to have... so.. i don't think they'd do that. ever. (i'm sticking to the laws of thermodynamics on this one)

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[sloegin]

I get a bigger kick out of the quantum. The image of, that Schrodinger (the O, should have an umlaut) Cat, is great.

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[sloegin]

Not only that, but that it is both at the same time.

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[fayefaye]

i was just sticking up for the laws of thermodynamics.

[sloegin]

I've got one to...it may be a clone, reincarnation, etc. She is quite capricious and impudent, from the years of indecision.

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[sloegin]

Oh my.
I wonder if they are able to consciously manipulate the quanta layers.

[fayefaye]

what are 2.6 and 2.4 dimensions?

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[fayefaye]

yeah, so then what are all the other shapes supposed to be?

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[fayefaye]

so something has to be composed of right angles to be considered truly two or three dimensional?

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[fayefaye]

not if the lines don't match u won't. ok, now explain that stuff about shrodinger.

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[fayefaye]

i'm gonna sound like an idiot. but since i do anyway- how can it be alive AND dead?

[sloegin]

In a box: (all of this, you cannot see) there is a cat, a vial of poison gas, a radiation detection device(attached to the gas), and a radioactive atom. Since all things are atoms, and all atoms move around. You never know when the atom reaches the device and releases the gas and the gas reaches the cat, therefore it is both dead and alive.

edited:because of the f*cking smilies.

[fayefaye]

poor cat. I'm intrigued. Tell me about the sea monkeys. A few years ago someone gave me some for Christmas, they were dead in like a week... I think someone knocked them over on the coffee table. Of course, I couldn't be bothered keeping them alive anyway. faye-sea monkey slaughteress.

[Stanislaw]

So then the cat is not technically dead and alive, No one knows weather it is dead or alive, so it is assumed to be both?

[fayefaye]

I don't think it's assumed to be both, but it could be either and there's no way to tell.

[Stanislaw]

I get it.:D , weird theory.

[fayefaye]

I think it's interesting. But I try to keep a lid on any interest I have in Science... Anyway, to the sea monkeys....

[Stanislaw]

Sea monkey?

[fayefaye]

Abdo said something about Shrodinger's Sea Monkeys. I'm guessing they applied a similar idea to that of Sea Monkeys. Not that you can ever see those things anyway.

[Stanislaw]

Really? The cat idea could be applied to any animal, or is this an entirely different theory?

[fayefaye]

I don't actually know, but since I have some spare time now I read up a little on this (emphasis on little-as in hardly at all. not enough to have an actual understanding.) But you could probably stick any animal in a box with a vial of cyanide and the experiment would still hold. I think Schrodinger's experiment is supposed to illustrate superposition-as long as we don't look to check in on the cat, it can be in all possible states. Funny thing about sea monkeys is if you ever actually look at the stupid little things it's pretty hard to tell what state they're in anyway.

[fayefaye]

If anyone cares, there's a poem on this at:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_122.html

I found it vaguely amusing, anyway.

[sloegin]

Sea Monkeys was a joke.

[Stanislaw]

That was a great poem.:D

The sea monkeys were just a joke?

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[fayefaye]

LOL. *hits head against computer screen* I get it now. I admit I know nothing about quantum physics. Schrodinger, Heisenberg, etc. It was interesting to find out about though. A little reminder of my ignorance.

[fayefaye]

Oh, but I would like to run some cruel experiments on Sea Monkeys. Moihahaha. Kill the buggers. Or leave them alive AND dead. :)

[sloegin]

You won't be able to catch them. They move from one reality to the next. So while they may be dead in this reality. They may not be dead in the others.

[fayefaye]

But if they're dead in this reality and alive in others haven't I succeeded in my attempts to leave them alive and dead?

[Stanislaw]

I think so.

[fayefaye]

the demon. In a maxwell's demon. Wouldn't he increase the entropy of the system? [I'm not gonna let this thing go. People will defy the laws of thermodynamics over my dead body]

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[fayefaye]

I just don't think it could work. I mean, the thing you described earlier-the box with the partition, well the chances of that ever happening are infinitesmal, though I admit chances exist. But when/if it eventually happened, it would only be for the slightest fraction of a millisecond, and in that time the partition would have to be dropped. that's got to be one fast moving partition to work. Consequently, when it closes the box, trapping the particles, and comes to a stop, it's gonna release a lot of heat [large change in velocity, small amount of time]. wouldn't this heat increase the entropy of the system? [but like I said earlier, I know very little about this]. Also, as for Maxwell's demon itself, the idea doesn't quite work, in my mind. meh. I'm tired. I'll go into it later.

[Azoic]

As far as the infinitesmal chance of all the particles moving to 1 half of the box, that's why we have theory. Theories don't always work in reality. (and sometimes reality doesn't seem to fit into theories) For instance a sphere of arbitrary radius COULD be disassembled into infinitesmal parts and reassembled, as a continuous mass, into a sphere of radius 2. This mathematical theory falls apart when we take into consideration a little thing known as the atom (no pun intended).

As far as sliding the partition in, if you shape your box so it is narrow in height (for less velocity when inserting), and use some good lubricants, then heat from friction could be minimised. Although technology these days allows for superconductors, allowing for lossless transmission of electrons, so why not say it is theoretically possible to transmit larger particles, such as a partition? Then heat is eliminated altogether.

Sorry for my verbosity, verging on verbocidal-ness.

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[fayefaye]

ok, what I wrote last time doesn't even make sense and I was hoping to get here and edit it before anyone read it, but since you already have, I'll leave it be and say that in my tired state when I wrote system what I meant was surroundings. Listen: this partition thing. Firstly, the chances of the molecules even filling one side are ridiculously small [as I already said] secondly, even if they only filled one side, it would be for the tiniest fraction of a second. A few milliseconds-MAYBE. Ok, I'm going to assume you're familiar with the average speeds of molecules in a gas,* which are generally assumed to be around the speed of sound in air (but are often faster). I'm getting to my point. So, for this partition to trap these molecules, it's got to go from 0m/s to over the speed of sound and back to stationary in the space of less than a second. [unless you can predict the movement of gas molecules, which you can't] Firstly, you probably can't do this. Secondly, that sort of acceleration could never be achieved by gravity. thirdly, even if you could do this, it would require a relatively large amount of energy. Whatever machine moves the partition, it's bound to give off large amounts of heat to the surroundings. this'll increase the entropy of the surroundings, but also the fact it needs so much energy means that the whole box thing could never solve the problem of our energy needs.




*If you're not, you can calculate it with v=square root of (3RT/M), R=8.314, T=kelvins, M=molecular mass. I'm not putting calculations up here. Yes, it is an average.Some will be going slower, but then again, some will be travelling much faster.


ok, now as for the demon, I wanted to argue it couldn't work even in theory. By saying it doesn't exist and wastes no energy, abdo's inadvertantly done that for me. I hope someone understands what I mean in my ramble.

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[fayefaye]

the demon couldn't work for other reasons too. It would need to use energy to observe the molecules, and wouldn't both the demon and the trap door increase in entropy as it opens and closes? Doesn't that increase the total entropy of the system. Then there's other stuff about the demon itself..... [I'm not sure I know enough about it to properly refute it]

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[fayefaye]

Originally posted by AbdoRinbo
Maxwell's demon is a relay mechanism that responds in a certain way to information concerning the state of a particular system. It is not a living a being, but it is intelligent. Its only purpose is to violate the second law (entropy); and accordingly, the imagined results would have a profound impact on our existence.

Unfortunately though, for a Maxwell's demon to work (if it's even possible) would take 10^10^10 years.

Uhm, yes, a demon watching billions of fast moving gas molecules and operating a little trap door for 10^10^10 years [from info abdo himself gave above] is bound to use up less energy than could be gained from a box of gas. there's no chance. there will be a decrease in total useful energy-an increase in entropy. the more I think about it, the more Maxwell's demon strikes me as a total load of b.s.

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[fayefaye]

But if no such being can exist, then don't you have to admit it couldn't work, on the grounds you could never have such a 'ghost'? The demon itself would have to defy the laws of thermodynamics to not expend energy. It's sorta like saying, 'well if we can make a being defy the laws of thermodynamics, we can defy the laws of thermodynamics. Breakthrough!!'

[Azoic]

The demon it self isn't (at least in classes) supposed to be the issue. It's the function the demon performs. Sorta like Schrödingers cat. No one ever put a real cat into a box, with a decaying particle and a vial of poison. They are both just things to think about to focus thinking in a certain direction.

Abdo: I realize I said Atom, while there are many smaller particles. I was just trying to demonstrate a difference between mathematical reality, and physical reality. Also, I've been under the impression that anything smaller than the electron/quark level is still under debate, with the possible exception of the neutrino (which has debatable mass).

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[Azoic]

It is true that we have never seen electrons and neutrinos, although these much more widely accepted. (ie. nobel prizes have been given out for particle theories (bose-einstein condensate), while I know of none given for string theory)

Looking back to previous posts, I'm not to sure you quite know the theory I was talking about with the sphere. The radius units don't matter, it could be 2 angstroms or 2 terrameters. Looking from a purely mathematical perspective (ignoring scientific principles such as quantization of matter) you find that it is possible to deconstruct it and reconstruct it with the same amount of matter to have twice the radius (and the same density, although density means something different in this case, since it ignores modern principles altogether). What this is intended to point out, however, is that theories are quite nice as theories, but in the real world we have to have some sort of observability. No one has ever observed an orange being deconstructed and reconstructed time and again, until it is the size of the sun. Although certain theroies allow it to work. People have noticed the effects of electron transmission, (TV's, computers, telephones, anything that requires electricity to run.) to my knowledge, which is at times quite flawed, no one has ever observed the effects of strings. Or of anything smaller than quarks/electrons, for that matter (saving the photon and the hotly debated neutrino).

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[Azoic]

I'm not going to ask myself anything. I'll ask around to find the name of/writer of this theory I'm refering to. It's quite odd, and the implications would be astounding if it weren't for physics.

Obviously, this doesn't happen in nature, but it DOES in fact happen in theory.

The point is still that what works in theory doesn't necessarily happen in reality, and what works in reality doean't always work in theory. (for example of the latter, we have the humble bumble-bee (or am I mistaking that for another bee?), which theoretically can't fly)

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[fayefaye]

I'm not really sure I do either. So what you're saying is, theoretically you can break something down into infinitesmally small parts, and then rebuild it, with the same density, to have twice the size? I don't understand how that works even in theory. :confused: :confused: But I see your point about the difference between theory and reality. A lot of what works in theory doesn't work in reality, right? Obviously that thing wouldn't work in reality, but can you explain how it works in theory?

Oh, and I thought the neutrino was now pretty well established.

[fayefaye]

ok, I can see how it could work if you bombarded it with enough energy to increase total mass of the particles. Then maybe an increase in size could have the same density. Is that right? If you just talk about dividing it up it doesn't really make sense (Law of Conservation of mass. Oh no. Am I talking about Scientific laws AGAIN?)

[fayefaye]

hmm. I'll try and interpret azoic's theory, though I only know what he/she has posted up about it [so I'm admitting now I don't know what I'm talking about], and since they haven't given a name, etc, i have no way of finding out what it's supposed to be about. Here goes:

ok, this is a bit of guesswork and a lot of inference on my part [I'm basing the whole thing on nuclear physics], but when you split an atom into it's constituent parts, the mass of the parts you end up with will be greater than the mass you had originally (since Einstein showed mass and energy were equivalent). If you could keep doing this, maybe you could increase the mass sufficiently to double size without altering density. But this might involve breaking up protons and neutrons, etc into quarks and so on, using the same theory, to increase mass sufficiently. So whilst this may work in theory, it probably wouldn't in reality because you would not be able to increase mass enough. Is that anywhere near? You all talked about it in terms of just dividing something up, which I don't really understand. You would need energy to divvy up the particles, and hence would be increasing their mass anyway. Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[Azoic]

I am talking about the Banach-Tarski Paradoxical Decomposition. Sorry that took so long folks, it was a bit of a struggle to put together fragments of memory and misinterpretations. Banach and Tarski based their decomposition on a well established Axiom of Choice. The decomposition states that (here's the first place my memory goes awry) it is possible to take the 3-dimensional closed unit ball, B = {(x,y,z) Î R3 : x2 + y2 + z2 < 1}
and partition it into finitely many pieces, and move those pieces in rigid motions (i.e., rotations and translations, with pieces permitted to move through one another) and reassemble them to form two copies of B. (the Î in that equation is supposed to be an element of symbol, but was lost in translation, also it is less than or equal to one, but as this is math, and not physics, we can define it to be 1 angstrom or 1 AU, etc) The second place my memory goes awry is from reading about Richard Feynman, and his statements, I either don't remember his response, or his reasoning was incorrect as to why an orange can't be disassembled and re-assembled into the size of the sun with no change in density.

Oh, and just to mention one more time, this is math, and not physics, so while the 2 are joined at the hip, each has it's own body of study that may or may not be related either to the other or reality.

[Azoic]

Oh, I forgot to mention: I was wrong about neutrinos too, they have been known of for quite sometime (if I said contrarywise, I really messed up; I should know better than THAT), although for a long time they were thought to have been massless and travel at the speed of light. The current line given by physicsts (the ones I work with anyway) is that they have mass, and travel "very close to the speed of light." This is the debatability I was speaking of, for when I was in school, a physics professor said to me that this is the physicist way of saying "it has mass, it travels at the speed of light, and I don't want to try to contradict the laws of physics, or instill doubt that scientists know what were doing."

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[Azoic]

I was merely attempting to illustrate how theories of different sciences can be correct within each science, or even a few sciences, but they don't necessarily translate to all sciences or reality. Basically I was backing up your argument that Maxwells demon (and other thought problems) is worth understanding/thinking about, but it isn't something that will really happen.

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[fayefaye]

See, this is why I resent technology. I typed up a whole response then the thingy wouldn't submit so now I have to type it up AGAIN. ok, summary:
-nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light, duh.
-if the theory of physical sciences doesn't match up with reality, the theory is WRONG. maxwell's demon doesn't just not work in reality, it doesn't work in theory either. You just have to figure out where the fault in the theory is. I thought I already did that.... It's food for thought, nothing more.

[Azoic]

Yes Faye, it is food for thought, but whether or not it is anything more is for each to decide.
As far as your summary, well, I agree, sort of. Nothing with mass SHOULD be able to travel at the speed of light. I'd feel better about neutrinos if I'd have a reliable source saying that they don't travel at the speed of light. My most recent physics professor explained that within current detection limits, they seem to go the speed of light, but still have mass, and therefore physicists are not too happy talking about them.
Also, no one has been able to disprove the axiom of choice, and therfore Banach-Tarski Paradoxical Decomposition still holds, but it doesn't work in reality. It doesn't mean that theory is faulty, it just means that we have to realize that math is not reality. sorta like saying a map is not the territory. It's pretty much just a limit of reality. It would work if we could cut quarks into arbirary shapes of any size we desire.

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[fayefaye]

Originally posted by Azoic
Nothing with mass SHOULD be able to travel at the speed of light. I'd feel better about neutrinos if I'd have a reliable source saying that they don't travel at the speed of light. My most recent physics professor explained that within current detection limits, they seem to go the speed of light, but still have mass, and therefore physicists are not too happy talking about them.

See, that doesn't really make any sense... I mean, you know, Einstein's whole thang. Given that information, you can really only make the following conclusions
-Einstein was wrong. I would love for this to be the case, about pretty much anything einstein's done. I mean, can you imagine how funny it would be if it turned out that all those scientists spending decades searching for gravitational waves found out they in actual fact, didn't exist? :) But not likely.
-The Scientists inaccurately measured the velocity- Probable.
-Their whole idea of what neutrinos are is completely screwed up-possible
-your physics prof had no idea what he was talking about-bingo? what course are you studying?

UNLESS of course neutrinos actually have INFINITE mass as opposed to one billionth the mass of a proton, and infinite energy, which they definately do not...... :rolleyes: physicists. *dismissive grunt*

[fayefaye]

Originally posted by AbdoRinbo
(Kurt) Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is a mathematical variation of what is now know as Deconstruction (ahck, I hate that word).

*feeling a little bored* ok, abdo, tell us about the theory.

Hey, do you remember that time theory you came up with way back when? Yeah, well, I sorta thought it had a bit of a fallacy in assuming that you COULD do something an infinite number of times, but aside from that, what if you could do the same thing with matter? Then couldn't everything be made up of nothing? Just keep breaking stuff down forever? I mean, first they thought the atom was the smallest particle, then protons, neutrons and electrons, now quarks, etc,etc. How do they really know what the smallest particle is? Maybe the mathematical limit or whatever could prevent the idea, but still......

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[fayefaye]

arggh. See, I used to really love paradoxes. Studying Economics cures you of that quick-smart. The whole subject's just stupid paradoxes/sophisms.

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[fayefaye]

Depends which. you get over things like Xeno's paradox real quick.

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[Azoic]

Faye: true, Einstein probably isn't wrong, but then he may not be completely right either. Einstein was never comfortable with Heinsenberg's (sp?) uncertainty prinicple ("God does not play dice" is well known, and I've heard, but don't know if it's actually Einstein: "God does play dice, but the dice are loaded").
As far as incorrectly measuring speed: I think my professor implied that our ability to detect velocity isn't quite precise enough. I think he made that statement because that is/was his primary focus in physics, so after he said that he (or anyone) doesn't understand why neutrinos can go faster than anything else with mass, that maybe we could find out that neutrino's aren't special if we could measure more accurately. It seems quite likely that the nature of a neutrino is still quite veilied.

When I was a pupil of the prof in question, I was taking modern physics (quantum/relativistic) at the University of Colorado (where the Bose-Einstein condensate was first made).

Can one of you two tell me about this alleged Zeno and his/her paradox? (is that the one that states I can never get from here to there, because I have to cover half the distance first, and before that I have to cover half of that distance, ad infinaum (sp?))

[fayefaye]

Abdo:lol. And the prize for grammar nazi goes to.... AbdoRinbo!! Come on down!!

I'm pretty sure I've seen it spelt with an X, but ok, whatever.

Az:I'd love for Einstein to be wrong. I really, really would. But, yeah, they probably inaccurately measured velocity. How do they measure it anyway? I bet it's all maths and calculations. I have no idea how they'd physically measure it. I mean, neutrinos very rarely interact with matter-if they passed through lead 90 light years thick, they'd only have a 50% chance being absorbed.... so how do they measure their velocity? ha! You're studying quantum? I'd probably really hate to do that. It just seems like they make it up as they go along sometimes *doesn't know what she's talking about* well, you know, they always seem to be revamping their theories.

[fayefaye]

ack! don't post under severe time constraints! why do i always do that? can't finish last post/post decent reply now. promise to finish earlier post later. will ans az q. later. achilles and tortoise. sure you've heard of it anyway. sorry for overall halfa-ssed ness. hope you had a great Christmas.

[Azoic]

Thanks Faye. Christmas is/was great. I got lots of stuff to cook with and some beer. As far as measuring Neutrino velocity, I have no idea. I'm pretty sure they measure number of each neutrino type ejected from the sun with heavy water some where in Canada, but I really don't know much about the subject (fyi: heavy water is water with deuterium (sp?) instead of regular hydrogen). I'll have to ask about neutrinos when I go back to school, in July (or next February, depending on when I take the approprate classes). I would ask now, but I don't have a professor to ask, and I took quantum about 2.5 years ago, so memory is getting quite fogged.

[fayefaye]

OMG. It did it. AGAIN. I'm gonna complain to Admin. I click 'submit' and it says I'm not logged in when I am, And i lose the whole damn post I just typed up. Seriously, I put real effort into that thing. ARRGGGHHH.

AGAIN. Az, isn't heavy water still less dense than lead? *waaay too lazy and frustrated to calculate it* I still don't see how they're going to measure velocity.

Abs: my point about the paradox remains the same. They quickly bore me. The one you put up is far too much like 'I always tell lies' and 'I'll give you this advice. Ignore my advice.' I get sick of them quickly. But they're not all bad. I like the paradox of thrift because I use it to justify all my spending. I am happy to discuss paradoxes. Go on, post em up. Dish out whatever you got. the more complex the better. Have you or Az heard of Russel's paradox? Can one of you explain it to me?
Warning: I will rip them apart and try to reduce them to sophisms. And I may be a real condescending b**** about it to. Am aware I've been condescending in this thread. sooorrry. Trying to rile you and Az into a debate. hasn't worked. you're both too nice.

ok, paradoxes. Az, I did originally answer your question, but I'm gonna let Tolstoy do it for me, because now I'm irritated.

There is a well known, so-called sophism of the ancients consisting in this, that Achilles could never catch up with a tortoise he was following, in spite of the fact that he traveled ten times as fast as the tortoise. By the time Achilles has covered the distance that separated him from the tortoise, the tortoise has covered one tenth of that distance ahead of him: when Achilles has covered that tenth, the tortoise has covered another one hundredth, and so on forever. This problem seemed to the ancients insoluble. The absurd answer (that Achilles could never overtake the tortoise) resulted from this: that motion was arbitrarily divided into discontinuous elements, whereas the motion both of Achilles and of the tortoise was continuous.

By adopting smaller and smaller elements of motion we only approach a solution of the problem, but never reach it. Only when we have admitted the conception of the infinitely small, and the resulting geometrical progression with a common ratio of one tenth, and have found the sum of this progression to infinity, do we reach a solution of the problem. -Tolstoy's War and Peace. (less than 3oopgs left and I'm probably NEVER gonna finish it. :()

Tolstoy gave the first quibble I have with it. the second is that he chose two objects with mass and dimensions of their own, which, in themselves would surpass the tiny distance between them. If you think of it in terms of two points travelling in discrete motion, you can think about it for more than two seconds without thinking it's b.s. (*snigger* sophism.)

I meant to explain the paradox of thrift too, but now I'm totally not in the mood. basically savings are a leakage from the economy, if not matched by equivalent investment it will result in reduced incomes. i use this to justify all my stupid spending, but there are sooooooo many reasons that's plain sophistry -ack. I'm turning into a sophist. Is that like my word of the day or something?- I'm just not going into it.

Finally, off topic, how come I'm the only girl to have posted in this WHOLE thread? *feels intimidated* used to think sloegin was female, apparently not..... Az, from now on I'm calling you Ax because I always type it like that anyway.
AND. have you heard this stupid thing (sure you'll both get it in 2secs, testing you anyway)
A father and son go hunting, In a car accident [:P], the father is instantly killed and the son taken to hospital. When he arrives, the surgeon looks at him and says 'I can't operate on this boy. He's my son.' How could this be?

Alright. the q, quantum, maths, paradoxes, hit me.
I'm done here.

[Azoic]

Yes, I'm guessing that heavy water is less dense than lead, but I think something about heavy water allows it to be useful for measuring neutrino emissions, 'cuz otherwise it'd probably be a pain in the a$$ to make large quantities, when lead would do just as well.

I don't know how they measure velocity either, but I'll ask when I get a chance (up to 1.5 earth years, at an acceleration of ~9.8m/s/s and what ever earth has as standard velocity, but these are details).

What is Russel's paradox? What is a sophism.

Faye, you are the only girl to have posted in the whole thread, because you are (apparently) the only girl cool enough in the forum to post on the thread.

Oh, and you might want to try copying (ctrl+c) your future posts just before you submit them, that way if they die you can just log back in and paste it right back in (ctrl+v, but I'll bet you already knew the commands).

As far as the "stupid thing" goes, I'm guessing one of the "fathers" was a step father, or perhaps you mention that it is "a" father, so not necessarily that boy's father, but just a guy with children, who goes hunting with someone else. I think the second one is more probable, but either should work.

[fayefaye]

lol. Thanks Az. I think heavy water has some special properties-it can stop/slow particles without absorbing them. Why are you writing about earth years and gravitational acceleration? ::confused:: :)

A sophism has specious reasoning-looks good, seems logical, but contains fallacies. (a paradox is supposed to be totally logical) A sophist was the kinda person who used that sort of reasoning... I think there mighta been some philosophers who would sit around all day and argue about stuff with really specious reasoning-the Sophists *something like that anyway. giving abdo chance to correct me. Could look it up but faaarrr too lazy*

Russell's paradox is some maths thing.... Something about sets, and I don't really understand it.

And, yeah, I figured that copying thing.. bit too late. It did it twice actually, luckily the second time I had copied. I'm just too lazy and don't want a whole bunch of crap on my clipboard. Thanks for the advice anyway. :)

As for the 'stupid thing' man-you were way off! Let's stay quiet and see if Abdo gets it.

[fayefaye]

Here: found something on Russell's paradox. ;) (minor breakthrough for me. Don't like looking for things on internet. The reason I just ask Abdo. :) )



Call the set of all sets that are not members of themselves "R." If R is a member of itself, then by definition it must not be a member of itself. Similarly, if R is not a member of itself, then by definition it must be a member of itself. Discovered by Bertrand Russell in 1901, the paradox has prompted much work in logic, set theory and the philosophy and foundations of mathematics

confused? you bet. ;)

[Azoic]

I wrote about earth years to keep anyone from being a smart *** and asking about years of other planets. The gravitational acceleration has to do with relativity. Since we are in an acceleratory field time is distorted for us, as compared to "zero gravity" (which doesn't really exist, VERY close, but not quite... at least not any scientist I've ever met).

Thanks for the explain on Sophisms. That Russell's thing is cool, but I'm generally not one to consider most paradoxes for long.

Speaking of internet research, I looked into that deconstruction paradox. The reason it works in math land and not physics world is there is a bit about 'the sphere must be infinitely divisible.' This basically means that it has infinite density, so when it is split into 2 spheres, the density IS halved. Since infinity divided by 2 is infinity, each product of the division is identical to the original.

I think I might have heard that 'stupid thing' before, and I'm not sure why my answers wouldn't work. Granted they aren't the right answer, but if someone else came up with the same question (ie. me) then my answers could be right. Unless you see some glaring logic error on my part.

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[fayefaye]

<he he. It did it again. Took your advice, Az. thanks. :)>


Originally posted by AbdoRinbo
The surgeon was his mother.

*smiling and horribly disappointed at being unable to stump abdo* yes. You're just as astute as I thought you were. Two seconds, right? Ax, yes, your answer could have worked too. I like the idea that they weren't actually related, but that was a fault on my part-it was supposed to be a father and his son. I suppose it could be a stepdad too. But the point is to challenge the person's perception of gender roles; most people start thinking along the line of fathers when they come across it, and ignore the fact he must also have a mother. Abdo, do you intend on ever telling us the answer to your 'reading rainbow' riddle? Do tell.

Ax, I don't really see what earth years and gravitational acceleration have to do with the velocity of neutrinos (though I suppose it's all relative). ?:confused: My point about quantum is that they don't seem that sure of their theories because how sure can they be of their data? Well, I mean, you know, they have to change their theories to suit reality because it's a physical science, but then how sure are they of their perceptions of reality? *drifting off into unknown territory* One thing I meant to ask you about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (As I understand it, the more precisely momentum is known, the less precisely position.) It's not just that they can't measure it accurately, it's that the particles can't possess the two characteristics. Why not? *feels like she's asking a dumb question, but hasn't studied quantum so wouldn't know anyway. Admitting own ignorance*

Abs, I think Ax was relating to physics when he said the sphere was not infinately divisible. Physicists probably wouldn't want that because then couldn't everything be made up of nothing? (since the infinitesmally small parts would tend to zero) Whilst it could be mathematically (wondering about physically?) broken up into an infinite number of parts (I think) and still take up finite space, the paradox was that it could do that and then be rebuilt into something with twice the volume, and the same density, which physically wouldn't work, and perhaps would only work mathematically if the sphere had infinite density (going by what Az said. not sure on this one, since I didn't fully get the theory to begin with). Anyway, by mass over volume, the only way density could hold is if it had infinite mass. Or so it would seem..... I think, anyway... but do you think something could have infinite mass?

So can someone explain russell's paradox to me? :confused:

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[fayefaye]

Oh no..... those things? I thought it was math....Aren't you going to give the ans to your riddle?

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[fayefaye]

ok, will SKIPPY PLEASE ans the riddle?

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[fayefaye]

Abs, you gotta tell me the keyboard command for acute accents and accent graves. I want to be able to say *ss, at least. (but we're kinda getting off topic here.....)

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[fayefaye]

Did you just call me an *sshole???!! As for keyboard commands, I definately remember simpler ones from when I did French. that requires waaaayy too much effort than I'm willing to put in.
*wondering when Az will post so we can get back on topic*

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[fayefaye]

real mature.

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[fayefaye]

Yeah. Ouch. Never heard those before. :rolleyes: :P

[AbdoRinbo]

.

[Azoic]

Sorry I've been gone girls (just reading something about Abdo using he instead of he/she, so there). I moved from California back to Ohio, and now am on a labtop mac. UGH! So ab, I skimmed your complaint about my glazed over explination. Since you can obviously read and type, go find the name of the theorem I gave you, go to www.google.com, and paste it in. Read.

Good riddle Faye. I should have gotten that, as I knew a kid with both a mother and father as medical doctors. Oh well, at least my sense of pride wont be completely destroyed, as (like you said) my answer COULD have been right. I just didn't know what kind of role you were challenging, I suppose. Ah well, enough excuses.

Oh, and I believe the answer to the riddle was the word "gry" which means 1/8 inch (or maybe .008 inch, haven't been paying attention recently). Don't know if this still works, since it might not be a word any more. Who defines what is and what isn't a word? Webster? Oxford? (in english, in these cases) is it just a common understanding? Do I not know? (no, I don't).

[azmuse]

And here i've been wondering if you were in Color Crayons for the winter holidays or some such around the Rockies. Welcome back!!!

Yes, gry is correct...i answered it as such (1/8 inch that is); it is an "archaic" term, b.c.? b.b.c.?

[Azoic]

Thanks az! Sadly I've just got this laptop to work with, rather than a desk top. So now I hit all the wrong keys when I type. It stinks. I suppose I'd better get used to it, though.

what does being "archaic" mean in this case? Is it still a word, just one we don't use or was it a word and isn't anymore?

Oh, and anyone who wants to ask more about mathematical theories, will still get answers, although don't expect me to go in depth on every detail. I'm not getting paid after all.

[fayefaye]

Hey! You didn't answer my question from earlier on quantum. :p I think archaic means that nobody uses it anymore. I don't suppose they can stop you, but then you might as well use whatever terms you like for things.

Anyway, back to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle!

[Jay]

Instead of "archaic" you could use "ancient" I think. Meaning very old.

[fayefaye]

This thing's floating to the bottom, so I'm picking it up, brushing it off, and writing some more stuff. I read this article about this professor at Yale who has this theory, that chances are, we are all fictional character's in some futuristic kid's computer game. Theory goes, in the future, computers and game characters will just keep getting more and more independent, until eventually they begin to think for themselves. The idea is that we could well be such characters, and what are the chances we are actually in the real world? I think it's all bulls*** personally, but worth sticking up here anyway.

[serpico]

But then, wouldn't the computer games be fictional as well?

[fayefaye]

There's one real world, in the theory, and millions of fake technological ones controlled by kids sitting at a desk somewhere playing a computer game. like i said, it's a stupid theory.

[serpico]

But by that logic, the 'real' world would be impossible to locate.

[fayefaye]

exactly. So you don't know if you're in the real world or the fake. Since there are millions of fakes, and only one real world, chances are ours is fake.

[fayefaye]

I wonder if the universe really IS beige.

[star blue]

should it be?

[fayefaye]

apparently.

[star blue]

I'm pretty sure it's black.

[fayefaye]

yeah you would say that. That's because you're inside the universe. [I assume]. The idea is, if you were outside the universe, with no other lights on, looking it, the combined light would be beige. -The universe would be beige from the outside.

[fayefaye]

BUT if you were outside the universe in daylight, it would be red, and outside the universe in indoors light, it would be blue.

[imthefoolonthehill]

so guys... I know I'm kinda jumping in here... but could someone define entropy for me?

[fayefaye]

Entropy is a measure of disorder, to put it simply. This can be by the number of different possible particle arrangements, or number of particles, etc. It's also connected to heat-more heat, more entropy, because a decrease in useful energy is an increase in entropy.... I'm pretty bad at explaining things... That's sort of it, around about.

[fayefaye]

If you're not in the universe, where are you??? outside. looking in on the universe?

They invented/are inventing a type of plastic that melts at 30'C. Somebody back me up on how STUPID that really is.

I read somewhere that we hiccup because we evolved from animals like lung fish. [check it out! I'm part lung fish!] And we kept the mechanism because it helps us know how to perform other tasks, like keeping food out of the windpipe. Interesting, huh? It's so cute how scientists just try to explain everything away.

Fool, the reason I like entropy is that it's why everything chemically occurs-eveything happens in order to increase entropy-more distorder.

[star blue]

there are some really good arguments out there against causality, faye. I went to a debate tournament at harvard when I was in high school and saw these two guys from some obscure university in kansas just rip into imperialism, metaphysics and science. what they said was that reality is always determined by culture . . . for example, we have weather forecasters who predict whether it will rain tomorrow or be sunny; indian tribes have a shaman who tries to coax the nature-gods into charity. now, if it doesn't rain, the forecaster might tell you that a warm front unexpectedly moved across the region and pushed the storm away from the city. he couldn't possibly have predicted that would happen ahead of time, it was just an honest mistake. now, if it doesn't rain after the shaman performs his ritual, then his answer is that an evil spirit hexed the whole thing. quite simply, his effort failed because of someone's bad karma, so the next step would be to find the force that is responsible, just as the weatherman did.

anyway, the lesson here is that the shaman rituals are always going to seem like bulls:hit to us westerners. we've inherited the greek way of viewing the world. we represent truth in the universe; we reside at the center (the polis). if you aren't at the center, you are a 'barbarian', which means everything you say is babble.

[crisaor]

Every culture views itself as the center of the universe, the difference is that playing that role has different implications depending the culture.
Regarding the greek point of view, despite its many flaws, I think nobody embodied wisdom in the way those people did. The amount of things they've passed onto us is huge.

[star blue]

above all, eurocentrism.

[star blue]

most of their good ideas were stolen from the egyptians . . .

[crisaor]

Not above all. They legacy is much richer than that, and you know it. And they didn't "stole most of their ideas from the egyptian". In fact, the only thing in common they have is a certain association between some of their gods, but that's all. But yes, I'll admit that eurocentrism is part of the deal. In fact, living in Europe (preferrably Scandinavia) is a recurring fantasy for me. But that doesn't mean I regard Europe as the epitome of perfection and morals. Every country (or group of countries) in a power trip wants to attract the attention of the others. In the case of the greeks, there are good reasons. Besides, seeing that we're a colonized continent, that was bound to happen.

[fayefaye]

I get the feeling most people will question the values of other cultures, but not of their own. The same probably holds true for means of thinking, scientific views, etc.

[star blue]

roughly 90% of socrates, plato and aristotle's philosophies were derived from egyptian doctrine at the time.

[crisaor]

Very very roughly. :rolleyes:

[star blue]

I read a figure in a book a few years ago . . . it was higher than 85%, but I don't remember what it was exactly. they set it up by first explaining all of the major ideas that came out of greece. then they showed where they existed in egypt prior to the fab three and at what point(s) socrates, plato and aristotle had gone to egypt and studied.

[fayefaye]

Always with the Egyptians, isn't it blue? *sneer* :p
I heard they discovered Pythagoras theorem before pythagoras. So they should really call it something else.
'The square on an isoceles triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides'
'That's a right triangle, you idiot!'
'D'oh!'

Hey cris, can you pick up on by obscure Simpsons references? It'd be great if someone here could do that.

[atiguhya padma]

Does entropy forbid the intervention of God in the Universe? If everything in the Universe is subject to decay, does this mean God cannot act in the Universe, and therefore there is no such thing as miracles? If God can intervene, then I suppose entropy must be locally relative.

[psycojones]

ok, having an engineering background i understand entropy as a thermodynamic measurement of useless energy in a changing system. i can also grasp the chaos general theory. but before i jump into this intellectual conversation i would like to educate myself a little more on the matter. atiguhya, can you refer me to some "good reading" on the matter at hand. thanx.

[fayefaye]

Yeah, I view entropy as more of a thermodynamic concept also. If you're going to take entropy to be ANY disorder, then I consider that it would no longer hold. [in relation to what ati wrote. Why would miracles involve defying the laws of thermodynamics??]

[the captain]

entropy is also a product of information theory.

[psycojones]

you are totally right fayefaye. i was just wondering if ap was pulling these theories from some type of new age philosophical book, or if he is spinning these off his head.

[pretty eyes]

they're physical laws, psyco. actually, entropy is the second law of thermodynamics.

[fayefaye]

yeah-I thought it sounded like total bs. What do you think of chaos theory, btw? Interesting? Why'd you bring it up? It doesn't really have much to do with entropy, does it? An underlying order in seemingly random events, as I understand it. [then again I don'tknow much about it , so...]

[atiguhya padma]

I was really referring to the implication that everything in the Universe is geared towards decay. So how can God act in the Universe? without decaying?

[fayefaye]

*shrug* That theory's stupid. hey cap'n, that thing you were talking about, was that the idea that information just keeps spreading, I think you brought it up earlier. But stupidity's what spreads, if anything, imo.

[atiguhya padma]

Actually, on this site, it seems that your posts are what spreads most. Maybe they are synonymous.

You should think of taking up teaching Fayefaye, you have such a knack for encouraging others.

[Sancho]

Had physical entropy, that is, the second law of thermodynamics, once explained to me as a box of Corn Flakes.

Any system will naturally seek its lowest energy state.

Thus, when eating eating a bowl of breakfast cereal, the good stuff is at the top of the box. By the time you work your way to the bottom its nothin' but crumbs. Yuk.

Anyhow, the principle of entropy has always been favorite metaphorical way discribing a variety of social and cultural "systems." I just recently explained to my spouse that the expanding waist size of my Levi's was on account of entropy, not a lack of will power down at the Baskin-Robbins.

[fayefaye]

ati, you're not half as witty as you think you are. OBVIOUSLY my posts only serve to illustrate my point. If information just keeps spreading, and we were to pay attention to the idea that one day knowledge and communication will cease to exist [I think this is a stupid theory, btw] then we have to looK at WHAT the information spread is. A greater knowledge of 'popular' celebrities, faye's opinion, etc, etc. Is this really going to make society any better or more intelligent? I don't think so. Just look at the types of information commonly spread. obviously people are just getting dumber with time. It will start with me and spread to the rest of you chumps.... :)

ok, pick the fallacy

You set up a uniform magnetic field in a perfect vacuum, into which you place a bunch of electrons. Since they'll keep moving in a circular path at constant speed [due to force from field] why doesn't this defy the law of entropy?