Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:04 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one, in which the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a new clone, like an amoeba does. Perhaps there are universes that split off when a decision gets made where, where it is analogous to a data file. If this is so, then part of the multiverse is a relational database. Call it Oracle-1 Delta Googleplex. I have dibbs on the name. Patent Pending! Collapse also doesn't conserve information. It generates new information - the specific way in which the collapse occurred, which adds some random bits to a value one could be constructing, and in any case adds that new state to the universe. Only the MWI preserves information afaics, by having the wave not collapse. Bruno proved that information is not conserved. Collapse conserves energy. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 5:39 pm Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy Collapse also doesn't conserve information. It generates new information - the specific way in which the collapse occurred, which adds some random bits to a value one could be constructing, and in any case adds that new state to the universe. Only the MWI preserves information afaics, by having the wave not collapse. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
This, I comprehend, I was just musing that why just keep the same concept of universes? Why not go tegmark, or trans tegmark, with this. Why not compare the super cosmos to be a data storing thing like a database, rather than an acorn, hold merely biological data? Since reality seems to be math(s) based, why not computational? Why not have a giant SAN, a storage area network, rather then just a random access memory with lower mem? Its just a conjecture from, and idiot, me, but since people like Seth Lloyd have conjectured that the universe does processing, I am dropping the other shoe on this. If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely random bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon went or whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view that the information content is preserved, because you have all possible outcomes and overall they cancel out (like in Theory of nothing but on a smaller scale.) -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 9:59 pm Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy On 20 November 2014 12:04, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one, in which the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a new clone, like an amoeba does. Perhaps there are universes that split off when a decision gets made where, where it is analogous to a data file. If this is so, then part of the multiverse is a relational database. Call it Oracle-1 Delta Googleplex. I have dibbs on the name. Patent Pending! If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely random bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon went or whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view that the information content is preserved, because you have all possible outcomes and overall they cancel out (like in Theory of nothing but on a smaller scale.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
I think that collapse conserves information, maybe, but it doesn't preserve information. In other words the universe next door doesn't seem to logical possess a read/write head over a disk. So the clone that gets wiped out doesn't preserve the information, post mortem, save in the universe where the clone remains unharmed. Its essentially a different person. Nothing, from the original cosmos is preserved, no storage. -Original Message- From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 6:53 am Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:04 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one, in which the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a new clone, like an amoeba does. Perhaps there are universes that split off when a decision gets made where, where it is analogous to a data file. If this is so, then part of the multiverse is a relational database. Call it Oracle-1 Delta Googleplex. I have dibbs on the name. Patent Pending! Collapse also doesn't conserve information. It generates new information - the specific way in which the collapse occurred, which adds some random bits to a value one could be constructing, and in any case adds that new state to the universe. Only the MWI preserves information afaics, by having the wave not collapse. Bruno proved that information is not conserved. Collapse conserves energy. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 5:39 pm Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy Collapse also doesn't conserve information. It generates new information - the specific way in which the collapse occurred, which adds some random bits to a value one could be constructing, and in any case adds that new state to the universe. Only the MWI preserves information afaics, by having the wave not collapse. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
It seems that information is conserved in an MWI Math Space where every possibility is known ahead of time; whereas information is created, but energy conserved in in a wave-collapse physical space. On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:59 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: This, I comprehend, I was just musing that why just keep the same concept of universes? Why not go tegmark, or trans tegmark, with this. Why not compare the super cosmos to be a data storing thing like a database, rather than an acorn, hold merely biological data? Since reality seems to be math(s) based, why not computational? Why not have a giant SAN, a storage area network, rather then just a random access memory with lower mem? Its just a conjecture from, and idiot, me, but since people like Seth Lloyd have conjectured that the universe does processing, I am dropping the other shoe on this. If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely random bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon went or whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view that the information content is preserved, because you have all possible outcomes and overall they cancel out (like in Theory of nothing but on a smaller scale.) -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 9:59 pm Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy On 20 November 2014 12:04, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one, in which the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a new clone, like an amoeba does. Perhaps there are universes that split off when a decision gets made where, where it is analogous to a data file. If this is so, then part of the multiverse is a relational database. Call it Oracle-1 Delta Googleplex. I have dibbs on the name. Patent Pending! If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely random bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon went or whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view that the information content is preserved, because you have all possible outcomes and overall they cancel out (like in Theory of nothing but on a smaller scale.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
Ok, understood now. Math Space, a.k.a. Platonic Space?). You wouldn't care to speculate on a data recovery for 'Math Space'? Some sort of magical read-write head? Sigh! I thought not. Thanks for the dear up. Mitch It seems that information is conserved in an MWI Math Space where every possibility is known ahead of time; whereas information is created, but energy conserved in in a wave-collapse physical space. -Original Message- From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 8:08 am Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy It seems that information is conserved in an MWI Math Space where every possibility is known ahead of time; whereas information is created, but energy conserved in in a wave-collapse physical space. On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:59 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: This, I comprehend, I was just musing that why just keep the same concept of universes? Why not go tegmark, or trans tegmark, with this. Why not compare the super cosmos to be a data storing thing like a database, rather than an acorn, hold merely biological data? Since reality seems to be math(s) based, why not computational? Why not have a giant SAN, a storage area network, rather then just a random access memory with lower mem? Its just a conjecture from, and idiot, me, but since people like Seth Lloyd have conjectured that the universe does processing, I am dropping the other shoe on this. If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely random bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon went or whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view that the information content is preserved, because you have all possible outcomes and overall they cancel out (like in Theory of nothing but on a smaller scale.) -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 9:59 pm Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy On 20 November 2014 12:04, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one, in which the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a new clone, like an amoeba does. Perhaps there are universes that split off when a decision gets made where, where it is analogous to a data file. If this is so, then part of the multiverse is a relational database. Call it Oracle-1 Delta Googleplex. I have dibbs on the name. Patent Pending! If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely random bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon went or whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view that the information content is preserved, because you have all possible outcomes and overall they cancel out (like in Theory of nothing but on a smaller scale.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
Objective Math-Space data recovery is nearly zero dependent on the classification of channels and revelation. Subjective Math-Space data recovery is possible, maybe even probable, but is soon forgotten. Richard On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:18 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Ok, understood now. Math Space, a.k.a. Platonic Space?). You wouldn't care to speculate on a data recovery for 'Math Space'? Some sort of magical read-write head? Sigh! I thought not. Thanks for the dear up. Mitch It seems that information is conserved in an MWI Math Space where every possibility is known ahead of time; whereas information is created, but energy conserved in in a wave-collapse physical space. -Original Message- From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 8:08 am Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy It seems that information is conserved in an MWI Math Space where every possibility is known ahead of time; whereas information is created, but energy conserved in in a wave-collapse physical space. On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:59 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: This, I comprehend, I was just musing that why just keep the same concept of universes? Why not go tegmark, or trans tegmark, with this. Why not compare the super cosmos to be a data storing thing like a database, rather than an acorn, hold merely biological data? Since reality seems to be math(s) based, why not computational? Why not have a giant SAN, a storage area network, rather then just a random access memory with lower mem? Its just a conjecture from, and idiot, me, but since people like Seth Lloyd have conjectured that the universe does processing, I am dropping the other shoe on this. If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely random bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon went or whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view that the information content is preserved, because you have all possible outcomes and overall they cancel out (like in Theory of nothing but on a smaller scale.) -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 9:59 pm Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy On 20 November 2014 12:04, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one, in which the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a new clone, like an amoeba does. Perhaps there are universes that split off when a decision gets made where, where it is analogous to a data file. If this is so, then part of the multiverse is a relational database. Call it Oracle-1 Delta Googleplex. I have dibbs on the name. Patent Pending! If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely random bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon went or whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view that the information content is preserved, because you have all possible outcomes and overall they cancel out (like in Theory of nothing but on a smaller scale.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to
Re: Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?
On 19 Nov 2014, at 19:43, Richard Ruquist wrote: In MWI it is rather difficult to reverse time and unsplit the universe. The mutiverse is only the quantum configuration space taken seriously. The SWE describe all quantum evolution as a rotation (a unitary transformation) of a state vector in the Hilbert space. I can hardly imagine something more reversible. It's not Hermitian It is unitary. Bruno Richard On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:40 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: I'd say that by about 1850 when people started to have a understanding of what Entropy was physicists had all they needed to have known that the universe must have started out in a very very low entropy state, that is to say they could have predicted the Big Bang in the early to mid 19th century; and they wouldn't have needed to go near a telescope to do so. But unfortunately they didn't, it's one of the great failures of nerve or imagination in the history of science. Boltzmann indeed predicted a low entropy state sometime in the past. Yes but Boltzmann thought that you could ignore boundary conditions and the second law of thermodynamics alone was enough to logically deduce that in the distant past the universe must have been in a very low entropy state, but in 1876 Loschmidt pointed out that Boltzman was wrong about that, he said you can't deduce a irreversible process, like the increase of entropy, from classical dynamics alone because if you just reverse the velocity of the particles in high entropy state B it will evolve back into the low entropy state A that produced it. And knowing that there are VASTLY more high entropy states than low entropy states and asked what state produced the stat we're in now you'd have to answer that it was almost certainly one of those enormously numerous high entropy states UNLESS you made a further assumption, the past hypothesis, the idea that the universe must have started out in a very very low entropy state. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
On 20 Nov 2014, at 01:03, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:06:47AM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote: The collapse hypothesis is correct if we need to conserve the total energy and information in the universe. Richard Wavefunction collapse creates information, it does not conserve it. Conserving information is equivalent to demanding unitarity of evolution. Wave function collapse is non-unitary. Exactly. It is the advantage of the many-worlds. The evolution of the universe/multiverse is a unitary transformation in the configuration space (the Hilbert space). It is deterministic, reversible, and let the probabilities and the information invariant. It is also local. And it explains why the memories of the observers contains appearance of indeterminacy (in a way coherent with computationalism that Everett assumed), non-locality, irreversibility, etc. Like you say: the collapse, if it was a physical phenomenon, would just contradict QM. The collapse is really an axiom saying that QM is false when observers do measurement. But this has never been successfully clarified, imo. Bruno -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
Now I am scratching my tiny pin head. So, from a human, or intelligent life pov, we can summarize that Math Space is useless. A tartuffery, good clean fun, that please the mathematical mind, but bakes no bread, nor, builds no bridges? Interesting, and I thank you again for the information that you provided. Mitch Objective Math-Space data recovery is nearly zero dependent on the classification of channels and revelation. Subjective Math-Space data recovery is possible, maybe even probable, but is soon forgotten. Richard -Original Message- From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 10:25 am Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy Objective Math-Space data recovery is nearly zero dependent on the classification of channels and revelation. Subjective Math-Space data recovery is possible, maybe even probable, but is soon forgotten. Richard On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:18 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Ok, understood now. Math Space, a.k.a. Platonic Space?). You wouldn't care to speculate on a data recovery for 'Math Space'? Some sort of magical read-write head? Sigh! I thought not. Thanks for the dear up. Mitch It seems that information is conserved in an MWI Math Space where every possibility is known ahead of time; whereas information is created, but energy conserved in in a wave-collapse physical space. -Original Message- From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 8:08 am Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy It seems that information is conserved in an MWI Math Space where every possibility is known ahead of time; whereas information is created, but energy conserved in in a wave-collapse physical space. On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:59 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: This, I comprehend, I was just musing that why just keep the same concept of universes? Why not go tegmark, or trans tegmark, with this. Why not compare the super cosmos to be a data storing thing like a database, rather than an acorn, hold merely biological data? Since reality seems to be math(s) based, why not computational? Why not have a giant SAN, a storage area network, rather then just a random access memory with lower mem? Its just a conjecture from, and idiot, me, but since people like Seth Lloyd have conjectured that the universe does processing, I am dropping the other shoe on this. If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely random bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon went or whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view that the information content is preserved, because you have all possible outcomes and overall they cancel out (like in Theory of nothing but on a smaller scale.) -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 9:59 pm Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy On 20 November 2014 12:04, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one, in which the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a new clone, like an amoeba does. Perhaps there are universes that split off when a decision gets made where, where it is analogous to a data file. If this is so, then part of the multiverse is a relational database. Call it Oracle-1 Delta Googleplex. I have dibbs on the name. Patent Pending! If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely random bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon went or whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view that the information content is preserved, because you have all possible outcomes and overall they cancel out (like in Theory of nothing but on a smaller scale.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit
Re: Quantum Mechanics Violation of the Second Law
On 20 Nov 2014, at 02:15, George wrote: Hi everyone This post is relevant to a few threads in this list “Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?” and “Two apparently different forms of entropy”. I am sorry that I haven’t posted to this list for a while. I have been very busy with my work. In my latest research I have found that Quantum Mechanics, in particular the Pauli Exclusion Principle, can be used to go around limitations of classical physics and break the Second Law. Papers describing the research are publicly available at http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/11/4700 and https://sites.google.com/a/entropicpower.com/entropicpower-com/Thermoelectric_Adiabatic_Effects_Due_to_Non-Maxwellian_Carrier_Distribution.pdf?attredirects=0d=1 (Currently under review) Nice to hear from you George. It has been a long time indeed. I will take a look, but up to now, my computer refuses to open the document ... To be frank, I doubt very much that QM could break the Second Law. If you could sum up the reason here, it would be nice. Take your time (I am also rather busy those days). Best, Bruno These papers describe experimentally observed thermoelectric adiabatic effects (the existence of a voltage without any heat flow, and the existence of a temperature differential without any input current.) Here is some background: The story begins with a thermodynamicist of the nineteenth century, Josef Loschmidt, who challenged Boltzmann and Maxwell regarding the Second Law. Loschmidt argued that the temperature lapse in the atmosphere could be used to run a heat engine, thereby violating the Second Law. Loschmidt was wrong as shall be explained below but it is instructive to go through his reasoning. Loschmidt argued that the atmospheric temperature lapse occurs spontaneously, is self renewing and is due to the decrease in kinetic energy of molecules as they go up against the gravitational gradient between collisions. Therefore the atmospheric temperature decreases adiabatically with altitude and could be used to run a heat engine. However, Loschmidt ignored the fact that molecular energies are distributed over a range of values and that gravity separates the molecules according to their energy in a fashion analogous to a mass spectrometer separating particles according to mass. Molecules with greater energy can reach greater heights. If one assigns a Maxwellian distribution to the molecules (exponentially decaying function of energy), then any vertical translation of a group of molecules results in a lowering of their kinetic energy, corresponding to a left shift of their distribution. After the distribution is renormalized to account for the lower density at higher elevation, the original distribution is recovered indicating that the gas is isothermal, not adiabatic as Loschmidt conjectured. This effect is due to the exponential nature of the distribution. An addition (of potential energy) in the exponent corresponds to a multiplication of the amplitude. So Loschmidt was wrong: the Loschmidt effect (lowering of KE with altitude) is exactly canceled by the energy separation effect caused by gravity. However he was only wrong with respect to gases that follow Maxwell’s distribution. Electrical carriers in semiconductor materials are Fermions following Fermi-Dirac statistics and the above argument does not apply to them. When subjected to a voltage they do develop a temperature gradient. This temperature differential is hard to observe because it is promptly shorted by heat phonons. As experiments at Caltech have shown (see my papers), it can be observed in certain circumstances such as in high Z thermoelectric materials in which electrical carriers and heat phonons are strongly decoupled. The Onsager reciprocal of the temperature differential is a voltage differential which has also been experimentally observed. The two papers above describe these results in detail. In summary, quantum mechanics, in particular the Pauli Exclusion Principle, can be used to bypass classical mechanics in generating macroscopic effects violating the Second Law. Other relevant papers: 1) Hanggi and Wehner arXiv:1205.6894 show that any violation to the Uncertainty Principle would result in a violation of the Second Law. This does not contradict my research which shows use of QM to violate the Second Law. The paper also suggests for future research the reverse proposition that any violation of the Second Law would result in a violation of the Uncertainty Principle. This, if true, would contradict my research. 2) Lloyd, Seth, http://people.physics.anu.edu.au/~tas110/Teaching/Lectures/L5/Material/Lloyd06.pdf . This paper discusses derivation of 2nd Law from QM. I welcome any comment or criticism that you may have. George Levy -- You received this message because you
Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
On 20 Nov 2014, at 00:54, meekerdb wrote: On 11/19/2014 3:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: none use Positivism or any other school of philosophy because no philosophical franchise is of the slightest help in doing what scientists want to do, figure out how the world works. I disagree. The collapse axiom, which is still in amost textbook, and which is used by bad pedagog to avoid hard question, is a philosophical axiom relying on a religious belief: the belief that there is only one physical universe, and that we are unique. Some physicists used it as a rule of thumb, and as a way to not do philosophy, but of course, that is eventually like a use of God-gap type of explanation. It's more than a rule-of-thumb; it's the Born rule. The collapse is not the Born rule. You can add the Born rule, like Hartle and Graham, or derive it from the SWE, like Preskill, Selesnick, Destouches-février, and Gleason, with more or less implicit use of the FPI (which then must be extended to the full arithmetical domain). There is only projections, which correspond to yes-no observable. The spectral decomposition is all we need, + Gleason, or more simple treatment. Without it, there's no way to connect wave functions to probabilities and no way to test the theory. The probabilities comes from the FPI on the terms where the observers appears in the relevant relative states. It is just the same first person selection that the one in the WM-duplication thought experience. On the contrary, the collapse introduces a lot of magic non described by the SWE, like indeterminacy, non-locality, irreversibility, etc. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Nov 2014, at 19:43, Richard Ruquist wrote: In MWI it is rather difficult to reverse time and unsplit the universe. The mutiverse is only the quantum configuration space taken seriously. The SWE describe all quantum evolution as a rotation (a unitary transformation) of a state vector in the Hilbert space. I can hardly imagine something more reversible. It's not Hermitian It is unitary. Well it lacks enough energy to go forward in time, going backwards cannot be that hard. Bruno Richard On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:40 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: I'd say that by about 1850 when people started to have a understanding of what Entropy was physicists had all they needed to have known that the universe must have started out in a very very low entropy state, that is to say they could have predicted the Big Bang in the early to mid 19th century; and they wouldn't have needed to go near a telescope to do so. But unfortunately they didn't, it's one of the great failures of nerve or imagination in the history of science. Boltzmann indeed predicted a low entropy state sometime in the past. Yes but Boltzmann thought that you could ignore boundary conditions and the second law of thermodynamics alone was enough to logically deduce that in the distant past the universe must have been in a very low entropy state, but in 1876 Loschmidt pointed out that Boltzman was wrong about that, he said you can't deduce a irreversible process, like the increase of entropy, from classical dynamics alone because if you just reverse the velocity of the particles in high entropy state B it will evolve back into the low entropy state A that produced it. And knowing that there are VASTLY more high entropy states than low entropy states and asked what state produced the stat we're in now you'd have to answer that it was almost certainly one of those enormously numerous high entropy states UNLESS you made a further assumption, the past hypothesis, the idea that the universe must have started out in a very very low entropy state. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Nov 2014, at 01:03, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:06:47AM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote: The collapse hypothesis is correct if we need to conserve the total energy and information in the universe. Richard Wavefunction collapse creates information, it does not conserve it. Conserving information is equivalent to demanding unitarity of evolution. Wave function collapse is non-unitary. Exactly. It is the advantage of the many-worlds. The evolution of the universe/multiverse is a unitary transformation in the configuration space (the Hilbert space). It is deterministic, reversible, and let the probabilities and the information invariant. It is also local. And it explains why the memories of the observers contains appearance of indeterminacy (in a way coherent with computationalism that Everett assumed), non-locality, irreversibility, etc. Like you say: the collapse, if it was a physical phenomenon, would just contradict QM. The collapse is really an axiom saying that QM is false when observers do measurement. But this has never been successfully clarified, imo. With a sufficient number of observations/measurements the entire wave function is mapped out on the detector screen. Therefore experimental measurements verify QM. It seems we live in an energy conserving but non-unitary, information-creating universe. Richard Bruno -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Quantum Mechanics Violation of the Second Law
statistical-mechanical ensembles arise naturally from quantum entanglement http://people.physics.anu.edu.au/~tas110/Teaching/Lectures/L5/Material/Lloyd06.pdf a lecture given by Seth Lloyd QUANTUM THERMODYNAMICS Excuse our ignorance Classically, the second law of thermodynamics implies that our knowledge about a system always decreases. A more flattering interpretation connects entropy with entanglement inherent to quantum mechanics. SETH LLOYD is in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139-4307, USA On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Nov 2014, at 02:15, George wrote: Hi everyone This post is relevant to a few threads in this list “Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?” and “Two apparently different forms of entropy”. I am sorry that I haven’t posted to this list for a while. I have been very busy with my work. In my latest research I have found that Quantum Mechanics, in particular the Pauli Exclusion Principle, can be used to go around limitations of classical physics and break the Second Law. Papers describing the research are publicly available at http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/11/4700 and https://sites.google.com/a/entropicpower.com/entropicpower-com/Thermoelectric_Adiabatic_Effects_Due_to_Non-Maxwellian_Carrier_Distribution.pdf?attredirects=0d=1 (Currently under review) Nice to hear from you George. It has been a long time indeed. I will take a look, but up to now, my computer refuses to open the document ... To be frank, I doubt very much that QM could break the Second Law. If you could sum up the reason here, it would be nice. Take your time (I am also rather busy those days). Best, Bruno These papers describe experimentally observed thermoelectric adiabatic effects (the existence of a voltage without any heat flow, and the existence of a temperature differential without any input current.) Here is some background: The story begins with a thermodynamicist of the nineteenth century, Josef Loschmidt, who challenged Boltzmann and Maxwell regarding the Second Law. Loschmidt argued that the temperature lapse in the atmosphere could be used to run a heat engine, thereby violating the Second Law. Loschmidt was wrong as shall be explained below but it is instructive to go through his reasoning. Loschmidt argued that the atmospheric temperature lapse occurs spontaneously, is self renewing and is due to the decrease in kinetic energy of molecules as they go up against the gravitational gradient between collisions. Therefore the atmospheric temperature decreases adiabatically with altitude and could be used to run a heat engine. However, Loschmidt ignored the fact that molecular energies are distributed over a range of values and that gravity separates the molecules according to their energy in a fashion analogous to a mass spectrometer separating particles according to mass. Molecules with greater energy can reach greater heights. If one assigns a Maxwellian distribution to the molecules (exponentially decaying function of energy), then any vertical translation of a group of molecules results in a lowering of their kinetic energy, corresponding to a left shift of their distribution. After the distribution is renormalized to account for the lower density at higher elevation, the original distribution is recovered indicating that the gas is isothermal, not adiabatic as Loschmidt conjectured. This effect is due to the exponential nature of the distribution. An addition (of potential energy) in the exponent corresponds to a multiplication of the amplitude. So Loschmidt was wrong: the Loschmidt effect (lowering of KE with altitude) is exactly canceled by the energy separation effect caused by gravity. However he was only wrong with respect to gases that follow Maxwell’s distribution. Electrical carriers in semiconductor materials are Fermions following Fermi-Dirac statistics and the above argument does not apply to them. When subjected to a voltage they do develop a temperature gradient. This temperature differential is hard to observe because it is promptly shorted by heat phonons. As experiments at Caltech have shown (see my papers), it can be observed in certain circumstances such as in high Z thermoelectric materials in which electrical carriers and heat phonons are strongly decoupled. The Onsager reciprocal of the temperature differential is a voltage differential which has also been experimentally observed. The two papers above describe these results in detail. In summary, quantum mechanics, in particular the Pauli Exclusion Principle, can be used to bypass classical mechanics in generating macroscopic effects violating the Second Law. Other relevant papers: 1) Hanggi and Wehner arXiv:1205.6894 http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.6894
Re: Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The mutiverse is only the quantum configuration space taken seriously. The SWE describe all quantum evolution as a rotation (a unitary transformation) of a state vector in the Hilbert space. I can hardly imagine something more reversible. Yes the Schrodinger Wave Equation is easily reversible (and it's continuous and deterministic too), but with regard to the reversibility of time that's a irrelevant fact because the SWE is a unobservable abstraction. To get something real that you can actually see you must square the amplitude of the SWE of a particle at a point and that will give you the probability you will observe the particle at that point, and probability, unlike the SWE, is something that you can observe and measure. And Schrodinger's equation has complex values, that means it has a i (the square root of -1) in it, and that means very different quantum wave functions can give the exact same probability when you square it; and if X and Y both produce Z then things are not reversible, if you're in state Z there is no way to know if the previous state was X or Y. You get all sorts of strange stuff with i, like i^2=i^6 =-1 and i^4=i^100=1. And in the macroscopic non quantum world if the probability of me flipping a coin and getting heads is 1/2 and the probability of you flipping a coin and getting heads is 1/2 then the probability of both you and me getting heads is 1/4, but in Quantum Mechanics that's not necessarily true because now you must deal with i and complex numbers. I think you could say that mathematically it's the existence of that damn i in the SWE that makes Quantum Mechanics so weird. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
On 11/20/2014 8:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Nov 2014, at 00:54, meekerdb wrote: On 11/19/2014 3:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: none use Positivism or any other school of philosophy because no philosophical franchise is of the slightest help in doing what scientists want to do, figure out how the world works. I disagree. The collapse axiom, which is still in amost textbook, and which is used by bad pedagog to avoid hard question, is a philosophical axiom relying on a religious belief: the belief that there is only one physical universe, and that we are unique. Some physicists used it as a rule of thumb, and as a way to not do philosophy, but of course, that is eventually like a use of God-gap type of explanation. It's more than a rule-of-thumb; it's the Born rule. The collapse is not the Born rule. You can add the Born rule, like Hartle and Graham, or derive it from the SWE, like Preskill, Selesnick, Destouches-février, and Gleason, with more or less implicit use of the FPI (which then must be extended to the full arithmetical domain). There is only projections, which correspond to yes-no observable. The spectral decomposition is all we need, + Gleason, or more simple treatment. Gleason says IF the Hilbert ray implies probabilities they must come from the Born rule. But it doesn't say why they should imply probabilities. Without it, there's no way to connect wave functions to probabilities and no way to test the theory. The probabilities comes from the FPI on the terms where the observers appears in the relevant relative states. It is just the same first person selection that the one in the WM-duplication thought experience. But first person selection is the same as collapsing the wave function for each person. They renormalize it to reflect that it's either Moscow or Washington. Brent On the contrary, the collapse introduces a lot of magic non described by the SWE, like indeterminacy, non-locality, irreversibility, etc. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Quantum Mechanics Violation of the Second Law
This is very interesting, if I can just get my head round it. Traditional thermodynamics basically tells us that a closed system in a macroscopically distinct state (and that is able to do so) will evolve with high probability towards a state that is macroscopically indistinguishable from most of the other states it can evolve into. However using quantum phenomena like entanglement and uncertainty could root this apparently emergent statistical phenomenon in some fundamental physics. Since the emergent version should work anyway - with virtually *any *laws of physics - we appear to have a surfeit of explanatory power! However I need to get my head around it some more. On 21 November 2014 07:26, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: statistical-mechanical ensembles arise naturally from quantum entanglement http://people.physics.anu.edu.au/~tas110/Teaching/Lectures/L5/Material/Lloyd06.pdf a lecture given by Seth Lloyd QUANTUM THERMODYNAMICS Excuse our ignorance Classically, the second law of thermodynamics implies that our knowledge about a system always decreases. A more flattering interpretation connects entropy with entanglement inherent to quantum mechanics. SETH LLOYD is in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139-4307, USA On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Nov 2014, at 02:15, George wrote: Hi everyone This post is relevant to a few threads in this list “Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?” and “Two apparently different forms of entropy”. I am sorry that I haven’t posted to this list for a while. I have been very busy with my work. In my latest research I have found that Quantum Mechanics, in particular the Pauli Exclusion Principle, can be used to go around limitations of classical physics and break the Second Law. Papers describing the research are publicly available at http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/11/4700 and https://sites.google.com/a/entropicpower.com/entropicpower-com/Thermoelectric_Adiabatic_Effects_Due_to_Non-Maxwellian_Carrier_Distribution.pdf?attredirects=0d=1 (Currently under review) Nice to hear from you George. It has been a long time indeed. I will take a look, but up to now, my computer refuses to open the document ... To be frank, I doubt very much that QM could break the Second Law. If you could sum up the reason here, it would be nice. Take your time (I am also rather busy those days). Best, Bruno These papers describe experimentally observed thermoelectric adiabatic effects (the existence of a voltage without any heat flow, and the existence of a temperature differential without any input current.) Here is some background: The story begins with a thermodynamicist of the nineteenth century, Josef Loschmidt, who challenged Boltzmann and Maxwell regarding the Second Law. Loschmidt argued that the temperature lapse in the atmosphere could be used to run a heat engine, thereby violating the Second Law. Loschmidt was wrong as shall be explained below but it is instructive to go through his reasoning. Loschmidt argued that the atmospheric temperature lapse occurs spontaneously, is self renewing and is due to the decrease in kinetic energy of molecules as they go up against the gravitational gradient between collisions. Therefore the atmospheric temperature decreases adiabatically with altitude and could be used to run a heat engine. However, Loschmidt ignored the fact that molecular energies are distributed over a range of values and that gravity separates the molecules according to their energy in a fashion analogous to a mass spectrometer separating particles according to mass. Molecules with greater energy can reach greater heights. If one assigns a Maxwellian distribution to the molecules (exponentially decaying function of energy), then any vertical translation of a group of molecules results in a lowering of their kinetic energy, corresponding to a left shift of their distribution. After the distribution is renormalized to account for the lower density at higher elevation, the original distribution is recovered indicating that the gas is isothermal, not adiabatic as Loschmidt conjectured. This effect is due to the exponential nature of the distribution. An addition (of potential energy) in the exponent corresponds to a multiplication of the amplitude. So Loschmidt was wrong: the Loschmidt effect (lowering of KE with altitude) is exactly canceled by the energy separation effect caused by gravity. However he was only wrong with respect to gases that follow Maxwell’s distribution. Electrical carriers in semiconductor materials are Fermions following Fermi-Dirac statistics and the above argument does not apply to them. When subjected to a voltage they do develop a temperature gradient. This temperature
Re: Quantum Mechanics Violation of the Second Law
Thanks Bruno, Liz and Richard for your responses. The topic is extremely controversial… It took me a few months of sleepless nights to come to term with these ideas…. but let reason prevail. I am looking forward to an open and rational discussion… a background in statistical thermodynamics would be helpful. Bruno, you may not be able to download my pdf file because your Adobe Reader is not up to date. If you wish I could simply attach these files to my email. Please let me know. You asked me to summarize my post. The best way is with pictures taken from my paper#2.https://sites.google.com/a/entropicpower.com/entropicpower-com/Thermoelectric_Adiabatic_Effects_Due_to_Non-Maxwellian_Carrier_Distribution.pdf?attredirects=0d=1 (Currently under review) Figure 7 shows what happens to the energy distribution of a Maxwellian gas (e.g. air) as molecules rise from ground level (red) to a given altitude (blue). Kinetic energy is converted to potential energy and the distribution shifts to the left. However when the distribution is renormalized as shown in Figure 8, the original distribution is recovered, implying that the gas is isothermal with elevation. The Second Law is upheld and Loschmidt is proven wrong….. but only with respect to Maxwellian gases. Now see what happens when a Fermi-Dirac gas (carriers in a semiconductor) is subjected to a force field as shown in Figure 9. The distribution is shifted to the left as elevation increases. However, renormalization does not recover the original distribution because it is not exponential. The lower elevation has a higher temperature than the higher elevation. The Second Law is broken. This effect can only be observed in high quality thermoelectric materials (Caltech experiment). I have made this calculator program and a simulator publicly available at my web site. *Figure. 7.* Un-normalized Maxwell distribution at ground (red/thick) and at non-zero elevation (blue/thin) showing a shift to a lower kinetic energy, a drop in density and a drop in temperature. *Figure. 8.* Renormalized shifted Maxwell distribution at non-zero elevation (blue/thin) is identical to original non-shifted distribution at ground level (red/thick). ** *Figure. 11.* Un-normalized Fermi-Dirac distribution at ground (red/thick) and non-zero elevation (blue/thin) showing drop in density and drop in temperature. *Figure. 12.* Renormalized Fermi-Dirac distributions at ground level (red/thick) and at elevation (blue/thin) are different. Elevation lowers energy and temperature of gas. Please look on the right of the pictures for the temperatures at the ceiling and at the floor. George Levy On 11/20/2014 1:16 PM, LizR wrote: This is very interesting, if I can just get my head round it. Traditional thermodynamics basically tells us that a closed system in a macroscopically distinct state (and that is able to do so) will evolve with high probability towards a state that is macroscopically indistinguishable from most of the other states it can evolve into. However using quantum phenomena like entanglement and uncertainty could root this apparently emergent statistical phenomenon in some fundamental physics. Since the emergent version should work anyway - with virtually /any /laws of physics - we appear to have a surfeit of explanatory power! However I need to get my head around it some more. On 21 November 2014 07:26, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote: statistical-mechanical ensembles arise naturally from quantum entanglement http://people.physics.anu.edu.au/~tas110/Teaching/Lectures/L5/Material/Lloyd06.pdf http://people.physics.anu.edu.au/%7Etas110/Teaching/Lectures/L5/Material/Lloyd06.pdf a lecture given by Seth Lloyd QUANTUM THERMODYNAMICS Excuse our ignorance Classically, the second law of thermodynamics implies that our knowledge about a system always decreases. A more flattering interpretation connects entropy with entanglement inherent to quantum mechanics. SETH LLOYD is in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139-4307, USA On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Nov 2014, at 02:15, George wrote: Hi everyone This post is relevant to a few threads in this list “Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?” and “Two apparently different forms of entropy”. I am sorry that I haven’t posted to this list for a while. I have been very busy with my work. In my latest research I have found that Quantum Mechanics, in particular the Pauli Exclusion Principle, can be used to go around limitations of classical physics and break the Second Law. Papers describing the
Re: Quantum Mechanics Violation of the Second Law
On 11/20/2014 3:57 PM, George wrote: Thanks Bruno, Liz and Richard for your responses. The topic is extremely controversial… It took me a few months of sleepless nights to come to term with these ideas…. but let reason prevail. I am looking forward to an open and rational discussion… a background in statistical thermodynamics would be helpful. Bruno, you may not be able to download my pdf file because your Adobe Reader is not up to date. If you wish I could simply attach these files to my email. Please let me know. You asked me to summarize my post. The best way is with pictures taken from my paper#2.https://sites.google.com/a/entropicpower.com/entropicpower-com/Thermoelectric_Adiabatic_Effects_Due_to_Non-Maxwellian_Carrier_Distribution.pdf?attredirects=0d=1 (Currently under review) Figure 7 shows what happens to the energy distribution of a Maxwellian gas (e.g. air) as molecules rise from ground level (red) to a given altitude (blue). Kinetic energy is converted to potential energy and the distribution shifts to the left. Am I correctly interpreting this curve as showing that the kinetic energy probability density function is an exponential; so that the most probable kinetic energy for an air molecule is zero?? Why isn't it the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution? Brent However when the distribution is renormalized as shown in Figure 8, the original distribution is recovered, implying that the gas is isothermal with elevation. The Second Law is upheld and Loschmidt is proven wrong….. but only with respect to Maxwellian gases. Now see what happens when a Fermi-Dirac gas (carriers in a semiconductor) is subjected to a force field as shown in Figure 9. The distribution is shifted to the left as elevation increases. However, renormalization does not recover the original distribution because it is not exponential. The lower elevation has a higher temperature than the higher elevation. The Second Law is broken. This effect can only be observed in high quality thermoelectric materials (Caltech experiment). I have made this calculator program and a simulator publicly available at my web site. *Figure. 7.* Un-normalized Maxwell distribution at ground (red/thick) and at non-zero elevation (blue/thin) showing a shift to a lower kinetic energy, a drop in density and a drop in temperature. *Figure. 8.* Renormalized shifted Maxwell distribution at non-zero elevation (blue/thin) is identical to original non-shifted distribution at ground level (red/thick). ** *Figure. 11.* Un-normalized Fermi-Dirac distribution at ground (red/thick) and non-zero elevation (blue/thin) showing drop in density and drop in temperature. *Figure. 12.* Renormalized Fermi-Dirac distributions at ground level (red/thick) and at elevation (blue/thin) are different. Elevation lowers energy and temperature of gas. Please look on the right of the pictures for the temperatures at the ceiling and at the floor. George Levy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Quantum Mechanics Violation of the Second Law
The average kinetic energy of an air molecule is zero, I imagine, because they're all travelling in different directions and cancel out? Or doesn't it work like that? On 21 November 2014 13:09, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/20/2014 3:57 PM, George wrote: Thanks Bruno, Liz and Richard for your responses. The topic is extremely controversial… It took me a few months of sleepless nights to come to term with these ideas…. but let reason prevail. I am looking forward to an open and rational discussion… a background in statistical thermodynamics would be helpful. Bruno, you may not be able to download my pdf file because your Adobe Reader is not up to date. If you wish I could simply attach these files to my email. Please let me know. You asked me to summarize my post. The best way is with pictures taken from my paper#2. https://sites.google.com/a/entropicpower.com/entropicpower-com/Thermoelectric_Adiabatic_Effects_Due_to_Non-Maxwellian_Carrier_Distribution.pdf?attredirects=0d=1 (Currently under review) Figure 7 shows what happens to the energy distribution of a Maxwellian gas (e.g. air) as molecules rise from ground level (red) to a given altitude (blue). Kinetic energy is converted to potential energy and the distribution shifts to the left. Am I correctly interpreting this curve as showing that the kinetic energy probability density function is an exponential; so that the most probable kinetic energy for an air molecule is zero?? Why isn't it the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution? Brent However when the distribution is renormalized as shown in Figure 8, the original distribution is recovered, implying that the gas is isothermal with elevation. The Second Law is upheld and Loschmidt is proven wrong….. but only with respect to Maxwellian gases. Now see what happens when a Fermi-Dirac gas (carriers in a semiconductor) is subjected to a force field as shown in Figure 9. The distribution is shifted to the left as elevation increases. However, renormalization does not recover the original distribution because it is not exponential. The lower elevation has a higher temperature than the higher elevation. The Second Law is broken. This effect can only be observed in high quality thermoelectric materials (Caltech experiment). I have made this calculator program and a simulator publicly available at my web site. *Figure. 7.* Un-normalized Maxwell distribution at ground (red/thick) and at non-zero elevation (blue/thin) showing a shift to a lower kinetic energy, a drop in density and a drop in temperature. *Figure. 8.* Renormalized shifted Maxwell distribution at non-zero elevation (blue/thin) is identical to original non-shifted distribution at ground level (red/thick). *Figure. 11.* Un-normalized Fermi-Dirac distribution at ground (red/thick) and non-zero elevation (blue/thin) showing drop in density and drop in temperature. *Figure. 12.* Renormalized Fermi-Dirac distributions at ground level (red/thick) and at elevation (blue/thin) are different. Elevation lowers energy and temperature of gas. Please look on the right of the pictures for the temperatures at the ceiling and at the floor. George Levy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Quantum Mechanics Violation of the Second Law
If it were the momentum or velocity the mean would be zero, but it wouldn't be exponential. If you just considered the speed (absolute magnitude of velocity) in a particular direction you get an exponential distribution. Is that what the graph represents? Brent On 11/20/2014 5:03 PM, LizR wrote: The average kinetic energy of an air molecule is zero, I imagine, because they're all travelling in different directions and cancel out? Or doesn't it work like that? On 21 November 2014 13:09, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/20/2014 3:57 PM, George wrote: Thanks Bruno, Liz and Richard for your responses. The topic is extremely controversial… It took me a few months of sleepless nights to come to term with these ideas…. but let reason prevail. I am looking forward to an open and rational discussion… a background in statistical thermodynamics would be helpful. Bruno, you may not be able to download my pdf file because your Adobe Reader is not up to date. If you wish I could simply attach these files to my email. Please let me know. You asked me to summarize my post. The best way is with pictures taken from my paper#2.https://sites.google.com/a/entropicpower.com/entropicpower-com/Thermoelectric_Adiabatic_Effects_Due_to_Non-Maxwellian_Carrier_Distribution.pdf?attredirects=0d=1 (Currently under review) Figure 7 shows what happens to the energy distribution of a Maxwellian gas (e.g. air) as molecules rise from ground level (red) to a given altitude (blue). Kinetic energy is converted to potential energy and the distribution shifts to the left. Am I correctly interpreting this curve as showing that the kinetic energy probability density function is an exponential; so that the most probable kinetic energy for an air molecule is zero?? Why isn't it the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution? Brent However when the distribution is renormalized as shown in Figure 8, the original distribution is recovered, implying that the gas is isothermal with elevation. The Second Law is upheld and Loschmidt is proven wrong….. but only with respect to Maxwellian gases. Now see what happens when a Fermi-Dirac gas (carriers in a semiconductor) is subjected to a force field as shown in Figure 9. The distribution is shifted to the left as elevation increases. However, renormalization does not recover the original distribution because it is not exponential. The lower elevation has a higher temperature than the higher elevation. The Second Law is broken. This effect can only be observed in high quality thermoelectric materials (Caltech experiment). I have made this calculator program and a simulator publicly available at my web site. *Figure. 7.* Un-normalized Maxwell distribution at ground (red/thick) and at non-zero elevation (blue/thin) showing a shift to a lower kinetic energy, a drop in density and a drop in temperature. *Figure. 8.* Renormalized shifted Maxwell distribution at non-zero elevation (blue/thin) is identical to original non-shifted distribution at ground level (red/thick). ** *Figure. 11.* Un-normalized Fermi-Dirac distribution at ground (red/thick) and non-zero elevation (blue/thin) showing drop in density and drop in temperature. *Figure. 12.* Renormalized Fermi-Dirac distributions at ground level (red/thick) and at elevation (blue/thin) are different. Elevation lowers energy and temperature of gas. Please look on the right of the pictures for the temperatures at the ceiling and at the floor. George Levy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
Re: Quantum Mechanics Violation of the Second Law
Maxwell's distribution f = e^(-E/kT) where E = (1/2) mv^2 can be looked at in different ways. It is a Chi Square distribution with respect to velocity v, and exponential with respect to kinetic energy E. The _most likely (mode)_ kinetic energy is zero but the _mean_ kinetic energy is not zero . The distribution decays exponentially with higher energies. George On 11/20/2014 6:13 PM, meekerdb wrote: If it were the momentum or velocity the mean would be zero, but it wouldn't be exponential. If you just considered the speed (absolute magnitude of velocity) in a particular direction you get an exponential distribution. Is that what the graph represents? Brent On 11/20/2014 5:03 PM, LizR wrote: The average kinetic energy of an air molecule is zero, I imagine, because they're all travelling in different directions and cancel out? Or doesn't it work like that? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Quantum Mechanics Violation of the Second Law
On 11/20/2014 6:28 PM, George wrote:
Maxwell's distribution
f = e^(-E/kT) where E = (1/2) mv^2
?? Distribution with respect to energy is:
f_E\,dE=f_p\left(\frac{dp}{dE}\right)\,dE =2\sqrt{\frac{E}{\pi}} \left(\frac{1}{kT}
\right)^{3/2}\exp\left[\frac{-E}{kT}\right]\,dE.
Note the sqrt(E) factor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell-Boltzmann_distribution
Brent
can be looked at in different ways. It is a Chi Square distribution with respect to
velocity v, and exponential with respect to kinetic energy E.
The _most likely (mode)_ kinetic energy is zero
Not for a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution.
Brent
but the _mean_ kinetic energy is not zero . The distribution decays exponentially with
higher energies.
George
On 11/20/2014 6:13 PM, meekerdb wrote:
If it were the momentum or velocity the mean would be zero, but it wouldn't be
exponential. If you just considered the speed (absolute magnitude of velocity) in a
particular direction you get an exponential distribution. Is that what the graph
represents?
Brent
On 11/20/2014 5:03 PM, LizR wrote:
The average kinetic energy of an air molecule is zero, I imagine, because they're all
travelling in different directions and cancel out? Or doesn't it work like that?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything
List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Quantum Mechanics Violation of the Second Law
Brent you are right. Maxwell distribution is not exponential with energy. For the purpose of comparing the different distributions, I was attempting to give the same form to all distributions Maxwell, Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein independently of the scaling factor in front of the exponential. i.e., Maxwell: 1/e^x Fermi-Dirac 1/(e^x + 1) Bose-Einstein: 1/(e^x - 1) I may not have been correct in doing this. I agree, Maxwell distribution is not exponential with _energy_. If we assume that the distribution is also not exponential with _elevation_ then the renormalized distribution after vertical translation does not overlap the original distribution. Therefore there is a spontaneous atmospheric temperature lapse and Loschmidt was right after all! Breaking the Second Law does not require QM. All that is required is a Maxwellian gas in a force field. The question therefore is whether Maxwell distribution is exponential with _elevation_. If it is then Loschmidt falls on Maxwellian gases. If it is not, then Loschmidt is completely vindicated for any kind of gas. I need to think about this. Any idea? George On 11/20/2014 6:41 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 11/20/2014 6:28 PM, George wrote: Maxwell's distribution f = e^(-E/kT) where E = (1/2) mv^2 ?? Distribution with respect to energy is: Note the sqrt(E) factor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell-Boltzmann_distribution Brent can be looked at in different ways. It is a Chi Square distribution with respect to velocity v, and exponential with respect to kinetic energy E. The _most likely (mode)_ kinetic energy is zero Not for a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. Brent but the _mean_ kinetic energy is not zero . The distribution decays exponentially with higher energies. George On 11/20/2014 6:13 PM, meekerdb wrote: If it were the momentum or velocity the mean would be zero, but it wouldn't be exponential. If you just considered the speed (absolute magnitude of velocity) in a particular direction you get an exponential distribution. Is that what the graph represents? Brent On 11/20/2014 5:03 PM, LizR wrote: The average kinetic energy of an air molecule is zero, I imagine, because they're all travelling in different directions and cancel out? Or doesn't it work like that? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
