[Physics] New topic question: Entropy

[James Rose]

 Maurice,
Your remarks affirm Ilja's .. in a wording that makes a bit clearer sense to me.  But my concern remains .. where I -do- in a slight different appreciation .. agree with the both of you.
Firstly though, the applied sciences ..observed physical science phenomena .. which is what the majority of the world relates to .. is what comes to mind for most scientists... and whatever their fields and work of focus.
Life sciences especially are associated with something going on where 'order formation~instantiation' .. extraordinarily "complicated but involved synchronous architectures and behaviors" is the norm .. in distinct opposition to fundamental physics (and most) chemistry phenomena .. where energy diffusion and dissipation is the main rule  --- (attractive consolidating 'gravity' not with standing).  

I do not address the disparity as a 'violation' ... of prior-tier (fundamental) physics tendencies .. gasses energy diffusions, friction dissipations .. Carnot rule of .. less and less ability to "do work".
The higher tiers of organized physical systems are -built on-   and   -made of-   the lower tiers.
To hypothesize that some 'new law of nature' mysteriously shows up as a contradiction to the originating fundamental rules of energy~matter performance .. seems both silly and absurd .. .to -me-.
BUT ... and this is what -might- perk up the interest of those of you primarily Mathematicians ...  part of my analysis about re-thinking the physical different phenomena involved .. led me to -also- consider .. is the necessity (in my modelling requirements)  was the likelihood that several conventional math ideas could use re-assessment also.
The first challenge I saw was to ask .. What is holding us back from an improved coordination of how to describe -- in a -unified way- .. closed systems with open systems?   What I hit in was Godel's incompleteness theorems.  Currently his logic of them is considered almost one of God's Laws .. irrefutable, unchallengeable.
Second hurdle .. something must be missing in our concepts and applications of statistics, to conclude inviolate incompatibility with deterministic continuum (eg, relativity) mathematics.
Third hurdle .. if their are many 'hierarchies of phenomena' organization in the universe ... we casually overlay math relations (such as 'power laws') when any of the hierarchies are discussing  ..-individually-  .. but the House of Mathematics currently -lack- .. any natural way to -navigate- among the levels of complexity .. without getting lost or ignoring tier translations of measurements.
In other words for this "3rd hurdle" .. where is the 'base numberline' that all the others are related to?   Could it be that there is no 'base number line"??     Eg.. if I have an assumed equation . such as  b = f + k - z .. and I can plug "numbers' in the locations,  and I can also recognize variables (x,y) .. such that   b = 6x + 2x^4 - (pi)y   (where ^ indicates exponent) .. then if I have many many exponents  ..which -also- refer to numbers .. but in a way that is -different- from the [6,2,pi] .. then is the exponential "number line' [1,4] possibly a "different number line' .. from  [6,2,pi]   .. {noting that the 6x is really a notation simplification of [6x^1}.    

AND ... after Mandelbrot has given us the valid concept of "fractional dimensions" aka 'fractals' -- in exponent locations, then -all- exponents can be interpreted as 'dimensional'  (instead of positive whole integers -only- as being 'dimensions').Which means -- even exponent zero .. k^0 .. makes 'zero' a valid 'dimensional' value .. and in fact .. probably necessary ... because THEN it becomes -valid- to complete the association all numbers in the House of Mathematics!
Every exponent and superexponent -relation notation- become an adjacent 'numberline'  and we now have a COORDINATED MANIFOLD of hierarchies .. simple with complex  ... related hierarchies of complexity.
Without this new connectivity and coordination of measurements .. in familially connected hierarchies of organization ... cleanly mathematical AND physical ... together. we will forever be not understanding the nature of the universe and how best to model all the diversity.
One last concept:   Claude Shannon was not the first person to mathematize "information theory".    On clear minded analysis .. the first persons to states the -essential properties of information theory and signal recognition .. were Newton and Leibnitz.   The did -not- realize what that had accomplished .. never used terms related to information theory   .. BUT .. in indisputable fact .. They defined the fundamental relations of signaling systems and therefore information theory.

:-))))   I gave you all a lot to mentally chew on  -- and probably ague against me about.   But all that I wrote is critically important --- and true.
And by the way.  Godel's incompleteness theorems were built on  ... a LIE!
GO read then from the opening conditions and criteria.   He -started- by inventing Godel numbering and Godel sentences.  He never explicitly stated it .. but is is exactly inferred.   His numbering is an INFINITELY -OPEN-   UNBOUNDED numbering system.(numberline).   He then procedes to define -artificial- boundaried constraints .. but leaves the number system in place!    It's more error built than  "This sentence is wrong".      But the theorems are enshrined in Holy Water, despite the at-core error propositions.
James Rosehoping I am leaving you all with troubled dreams each night.  :-)   [but only best wishes for your health and safety]
  

= = = = = = =    

    On Tuesday, April 28, 2020, 8:59:43 PM PDT, Maurice Daniel <5d at earthlink.net> wrote:  
 
 To all physicist:
I would like to point out to all physicists who care to listen that the law of entropy is not a law of physics; it is a law of statistics that is applied to physics and usually holds true.  But as pointed out by James Clerk Maxwell, a clever sorting mechanism, known as Maxwell's demon, can be devised that violates the Law of Entropy.  
Physicists have written hundreds of papers proving intellectually that entropy can not be violated, but none of these scientists have bothered to devise and perform experiments that attempt to violate entropy.  They're fixated on the belief that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle makes Maxwell’s Demon impossible. . .  I guess they're not very clever at getting around inconvenient laws.  The law of gravity inconveniently pulls everything down to Earth, yet I seem to recall several space probes sent to other planets and beyond that are never returning to Earth.  
Entropy is not a law of nature!  It holds true most of the time . . . but not all the time.  


“Any discovery, theory, or observation that questions the status quo will be suppressed.  That is a law of human nature more reliable than the law of entropy.   
                  Gordian knot               5D at earthlink.net



On Apr 28, 2020, at 8:46 PM, kostadinos at aol.com wrote:
James and All,
In the link below you will find some interesting results regarding Entropy. Among these is a rephrasing of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to read "all physical processes take some positive duration of time to occur".
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271076416_Entropy_and_'The_Arrow_of_Time'_A_Love_Story_by_Constantinos_Ragazas
Enjoy!
Kostas
kostadinos at aol.com


-----Original Message-----
From: James Rose <integrity at prodigy.net>
To: General Physics and Natural Philosophy discussion list <physics at tuks.nl>
Sent: Tue, Apr 28, 2020 12:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Physics] New topic question: Entropy


 Ilja,

Intersting association.  From my readings .. "entropy" came from Clausius, Gibbs, and Boltzmann . to mathematize dynamic phenomena related to gasses, machines and the industrial revolution.
James

    On Monday, April 27, 2020, 9:26:17 PM PDT, Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 The actual definition of entropy is not strongly associated with
thermodynamics. It is, instead, part of Bayesian probability theory.
They apply a method named "entropic inference" to a lot of very
different things.

2020-04-28 6:39 GMT+06:30, James Rose <integrity at prodigy.net>:
> Good day, all,
> Is anyone considering that current convention analysis/designations of
> 'entropy' might be incomplete and worthy of further investigation?
> I am a General Systems analyst ... dealing with such things as 'complexity',
> emergence, enaction principles that are currently -different- between
> non-living (effectively aka . "closed") systems .. and .. living
> (effectively aka . "open") systems .. and if there is a way to correlate the
> types more accurately .. where .. the possibility exists that they actually
> have a -shared- core mechanism for their behaviors and performance
> attributes~capabilities?
> (sorry for the long question .. there is a lot to corral together and
> consider simultaneously)
> I have been looking at an essential adapted definition of entropy ... a
> 'generalization' .. so to speak ... where it is not so strongly associated
> with thermodynamics.   I am not intimating such a new model has -no-
> association with thermodynamics .. only that thermodynamics of only -one-
> ... of -several- possible phenomena and dynamics .. where some other core
> qualia which is central and key to "entropy" .. can be identified and seen
> in non-thermodynamic evaluated systems.
> I would appreciate any thoughts.  I have begun the building of new equations
> that exactly identify that attribute of entropic factors and especially  ...
> defining "-interactions- between local entropic groupings".   [similar to
> Prigogine's model of 'far from equilibrium' ..but even more general than his
> equations (i.e. - not limited to chemistry)].
> Thank you everyone, for considering my question(s).   Looking forward to
> responses and opinions.....
>
> James (Jamie) Roseintegrity at prodigy.netMinden   NV  (north NV near Carson
> City)
>

_______________________________________________
Physics mailing list
Physics at tuks.nl
http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
  _______________________________________________
Physics mailing list
Physics at tuks.nl
http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
_______________________________________________
Physics mailing list
Physics at tuks.nl
http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics



_______________________________________________
Physics mailing list
Physics at tuks.nl
http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20200429/89c9cc2a/attachment.html>