Four Forces and Entropy

This is a question for those educated in physics.

I've gone around the internet looking for an answer to the question "what is the relationship between quantum mechanics and thermodynamics"?

The answers I've read seem to be logically inconsistent with the premise that there are only 4 four forces, yet the answers being given seem to dissociate thermodynamic activity from the four forces.

If everything is both a) wave-like and b) quantizable (particle-like), then the loss of energy (as heat) from a molecule must be a function of some essential asymmetry at a lower level - at the level of subatomic particles, no? According to physicists like Dave Goldberg (The Universe in the Rearview Mirror) and Frank Close (Lucifer's Legacy) - both of whom have written books on the subject of symmetry and subatomic physics, the asymmetry in the universe - and therefore, the transfer of energy between atoms - is a function of the electroweak force, or, the fact that the neutrino doesn't have an anti-neutrino to conserve energy.

The answers I've so far read seem incoherent - and it is surprising because for people so educated in the physical sciences, shouldn't they be attuned to the way thermodynamics is spoken about as a 'force' even though they simultaneously subscribe to a picture which posits 4 forces, of which their answers to the question "what is the relationship between qauntum mechanics and thermodynamics" implies a transfer of energy that doesn't include any of the four forces?

Since heat is associated with infrared energy, and photons are quantized particle of light, then shouldn't photon's emitted in the infrared range be what is meant by the "thermodynamic" heat loss?

Again, I am not a physicist, but I am pretty good with logic, and I find the answers that I'm reading to be all over the place i.e. disorganized and dissonant with the doctrine of four forces.

Who cares since quantum mechanics has proven materialism and hard determinism is simply human delusions:

a reply to: Astrocyte

When electrons jump energy states they are releasing or absorbing energy in the form of a photon, these jumps are measured in Joules of energy - the main measuring unit of thermodynamics. Exactly how much energy a photon is carrying is determined by its frequency. This is where you get Planck's constant from.

What an interesting question! I have an undergraduate degree in physics and math, so I basically know just enough about this to get me into a lot of trouble.

I think that the problem you are having is equating a force with energy, they are not the same thing. Newton's Laws of force are written in terms of momentum, which is mass times velocity.... no energy involved. Additionally, by definition momentum and force are vector quantities, meaning that they have both a magnitude and a direction. Whereas energy is a scalar quantity, it only needs a magnitude its direction is not important.

However, under special cases of Newton's Laws kinetic energy can be derived and then through thermodynamics kinetic energy into heat energy. This maybe where the confusion comes in.... I can work my way into energy from Newton's Laws, but I cannot go from Energy to Newton's Laws.

Hope this helps.

a reply to: Astrocyte

To my understanding, both QM and entropy are probabilistic. Many physicists now speculate that entropy is a product of entanglement, which would imply that everything is interconnected via entanglement, since everything experiences entropy in one form or another.

a reply to: Astrocyte

EDIT: This does not address the bulk of your post, just a small nudge on reference framing, and appearance of asymmetry.
The full scope of your questions is very large. You seem fairly clever, so my explanation may be under where you're at. I don't feel comfortable answering parts that are excessively beyond my knowledge, with poor acumen. I wouldn't want to risk harming your understanding with misinterpreted/bad information.

"then the loss of energy (as heat) from a molecule must be a function of some essential asymmetry at a lower level - at the level of subatomic particles, no?"

Something can appear asymmetrical based on your frame of observation. I can explain this as simply as I can, with a hungry rabbit, a box, and a bowl of carrot juice/puree.

Let's say you have a box. In this box, is a rabbit and a bowl of carrot puree.

Now, let's say this box and contents, obey thermodynamics.

The rabbit eats the puree, the net energy inside this box didn't really go anywhere, but the bowl is empty. Ok, the rabbit ate the puree, everything is still technically here. Nothing was destroyed nor created. Not really "destroyed" the puree is resting peacefully in the rabbit belly.


Let's start over, fresh box, fresh bunny, fresh puree.
This bunny is a messy eater. The puree gets everywhere inside the box, and because it's puree... Some of it leaks through and ends up outside of the box.

If you were checking this system for adherence to thermodynamics, and you were an observer inside of the box, unable to go outside of it. "We're missing matter... We're missing net energy... What happened? Is thermodynamics false after all!?"

Well, let's say you were to gain the ability to see the inside of the box, and the vast area outside of the box at the same time.
"Oh! Nevermind, some puree left the local system! Thermodynamics still functions!"

For anyone stuck inside the box though, this occurrence would seem asymmetrical.


Right now, many of our models are based on assumptions about interactions we can not directly observe.
We're inside the box, telling ourselves, that everything is fine, as long as any inconsistencies are settled by assuming the problem is addressed outside of the box... Where we have yet to go.

Have you read up on, or attempted to learn fundamentals of Gauge Theory?

I would also recommend checking some of the Joe Rogan experience podcasts where he brings on people working in these fields. Joe Rogan makes sure to get simple answers from those guys, that anyone should be able to understand. He's really good at coaxing simpler and simpler explanations for something very very complex, from very smart people. A genius whisperer, haha.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Astrocyte

To my understanding, both QM and entropy are probabilistic. Many physicists now speculate that entropy is a product of entanglement, which would imply that everything is interconnected via entanglement, since everything experiences entropy in one form or another.

Now this is a very interesting thought that I had not heard of before. The very first question that pops into my mind is does entropy stay the same for all of the parts that are entangled, or does one part keep the original entropy and the other part come up with new entropy? Any reading material on this as I find this something very worthwhile in following up.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
The answers I've read seem to be logically inconsistent with the premise that there are only 4 four forces

perhaps because there are other forces that we are not aware of

a reply to: AlFeynman

Max Tegmark seems to think that entropy and quantum decoherence are effected by both interaction and consciousness. The idea being that awareness is an interacting force. Basically, a cup of coffee might cool ever so slightly faster if no one is watching it. If true, then I would assume that a conscious individual's ability to influence a system's entropy and decoherence would be proportional to their capacity for awareness and focus. If everything is entangled, then I would also assume that a change in entropy in one location should slightly change the entropy everywhere else. It would be dependent on the degree of entanglement. I don't think all things are equally entangled.

There are a lot of "if's" to be considered until a good experiment can be devised to provide some answers.




I made a thread a while back touching upon this topic if you're interested.

Again, I am not a physicist, but I am pretty good with logic, and I find the answers that I'm reading to be all over the place i.e. disorganized and dissonant with the doctrine of four forces.

Try asking this guy. He likes relying on logic too. He also speaks like you write.
(Notice video of fire ,on his laptop, by the way):


But........... If you were to ask a mystic, he would say:
"When if there's nobody who can or will answer your
question , then ask The Word Itself"

Anagrams for "The Mysteries of Thermodynamics"

Modify asymmetric hotness there.

Fiery asymmetric hotness method.

Teach hotness symmetry modifier.

Modify symmetrical heater/hotness.

Ether! Modify asymmetrical hotness.

Modify my hotness matrices there.

My hardy fires/hotness committee.

Terrified! Hotness "myths" may come!

And just to let you know, not all answers are available
at this time , since the words have yet to be created.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Edit: Also, props on the Tegmark reference. He's one of my favorite teachers of these concepts. Absolutely love the multi-verse paper. I love every time I read someone have an "epiphany" about a new possible multi-verse explanation of the universe and they're like "It could be this, this is a way no one's looked at this before!" and I'm like "Level III, it's in the paper..."

I was genuinely surprised how all encompassing those few classifications are. I don't think anyone can think of a new potential multi-versal explanation that isn't actually covered by Tegmark's paper. end of Tegmark props

All things "may" have an equal entanglement as well as additional entanglements that do not behave the same way.

Sort of like Newton's absolute reference frames/absolute time.

There may be a base level entanglement that is equal for everything, and then the entanglements we observe are built on to that, but at the core there could be an absolute entanglement. (It may just be a direct property of strings or strings might literally be that by itself.)

Finding direct evidence of the lowest level quanta that all forces, fields, particles, waves, etc... share. Is something we are actively trying to do. Most things are looking at the after affects of bullets, but what we want to see is the gun.

a reply to: Archivalist

There may be a base level entanglement that is equal for everything, and then the entanglements we observe are built on to that, but at the core there could be an absolute entanglement. (It may just be a direct property of strings or strings might literally be that by itself.)

This is a very interesting possibility that hadn't occurred to me. A ground state entanglement as the foundation of all other entangled states. It makes good sense.

I think dimensions are absolute frames. We look at each dimension as individual axes, but maybe they should all be integrated as a whole. I'm not sure how that would work mathematically.

I don't think space or time actually dilate, only that energy and matter experience dilation within those fixed frames. I think Einstein shared the same sentiment, but simply couldn't make the math work. His initial intuition was probably right.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I have had similar thoughts on the matter.

I've been trying to break down and simplify dimensional concepts involving the axial relationships.

However, I recently learned a little about Gauge Theory and Principle Fibers.

After that, I've been playing with my model in regards to fully systemic relationships of each axis to everything else.

My ideas are poorly sculpted right now, and because some of my ideas are alternative and vary from the accepted models somewhat, I've refrained from posting them online. Even if I ended up being correct, I probably wouldn't want it tied to some random username on the internet, and I am no one in academia. I have a few doubts about key pieces of the current model for light.

We consider black holes, that the curvature caused by a result of their mass is so large light can not escape it.

My model toys with that idea just a bit. Perhaps light has a relationship in that situation, that isn't "the victim"
Maybe a black hole requires that light, to function the way it does, and would not be what it is, without it. If it were the light trapping matter in the center, and not matter in the center trapping light. That would have a snowballing chain of consequences for a lot of details in our current ideas.

However, there is just a single addition to our gravitational force formula, that would provide a functional explanation for my model, and nothing else has to be changed. Everything else will still function as-is. But the fun addition of that, it also creates an adequate explanation for WHY mass has "gravity". Not why a quantity of mass has a certain quantity of gravitational force, we have that down. But the reason why mass has the capability to curve space, in the first place.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Fascinating question, Astrocyte. I merely have (had, really, as it was a long time ago) minors in physics and math, and a BS in Chem. Theoretical physics is a bit of a hobby, I guess.

I thought about this for a while, and then I put it in the back of my head and made dinner. Afterward, an answer began to shape: for me, I think of thermodynamics as akin to Newtonian physics, in that it deals with more measurable constants of heat and energy and the various forms of energy. QM/QP deals with energies on an exceedingly small scale, wherein the interactions don't follow the rules of classic Newtonian physics. In fact, the particle/wave duality seems to be at the very core of things; as others here have noted, QM is probabilistic. Measurement is not precise for a location, or an orbital energy, or a magnitude, but VERY precise within context of a probability.

I think there are definately functions of both Thermodynamics and QM that can be applied, however much as Newtonian physics and QM talk to each other in the 'middle ground', they don't directly translate, because they see the universe in different terms, relativistic terms, probability clouds, and don't share units of measurement.

That's all I got. Everything I have written is, of course, merely my humble opinion.

One of the many things I profoundly enjoy about QM is that the mere act of looking at it, changes it's value. What's not to love? Surely this is proof of God. ooooooooooo! No I Di' unt!

originally posted by: Astrocyte
This is a question for those educated in physics.

I've gone around the internet looking for an answer to the question "what is the relationship between quantum mechanics and thermodynamics"?

The answers I've read seem to be logically inconsistent with the premise that there are only 4 four forces, yet the answers being given seem to dissociate thermodynamic activity from the four forces.

If everything is both a) wave-like and b) quantizable (particle-like), then the loss of energy (as heat) from a molecule must be a function of some essential asymmetry at a lower level - at the level of subatomic particles, no? According to physicists like Dave Goldberg (The Universe in the Rearview Mirror) and Frank Close (Lucifer's Legacy) - both of whom have written books on the subject of symmetry and subatomic physics, the asymmetry in the universe - and therefore, the transfer of energy between atoms - is a function of the electroweak force, or, the fact that the neutrino doesn't have an anti-neutrino to conserve energy.

The answers I've so far read seem incoherent - and it is surprising because for people so educated in the physical sciences, shouldn't they be attuned to the way thermodynamics is spoken about as a 'force' even though they simultaneously subscribe to a picture which posits 4 forces, of which their answers to the question "what is the relationship between qauntum mechanics and thermodynamics" implies a transfer of energy that doesn't include any of the four forces?

Since heat is associated with infrared energy, and photons are quantized particle of light, then shouldn't photon's emitted in the infrared range be what is meant by the "thermodynamic" heat loss?

Again, I am not a physicist, but I am pretty good with logic, and I find the answers that I'm reading to be all over the place i.e. disorganized and dissonant with the doctrine of four forces.

There is none.....one precludes the other.

a reply to: argentus

You hit the nail on the head. You might be interested in reading about the attempt to bridge the two theories, Quantum Thermodynamics.

Arbitrageur has a running thread "Ask any question you want about Physics."

You might want to ask him.

a reply to: Astrocyte

I thought entropy was more to do with atoms.

All matter (that makes stuff) is made from atoms.

They're always moving around slightly.

The faster they move. The more heat.

The heat gets dispersed over time and is lost to entropy.

The forces hold the atoms/molecules and matter together.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

The thought of Entropy occurring at the quantum level is very interesting. And how would it play into string theory and existence in multiple dimensions. The other interesting thing about all of this is that the Riemann Tensor that is the basis for most all multiple dimensional theories has an open cell for a scalar. Could the scalar be entropy?????

So how does all of this play into Dark Matter/Energy???? I have been looking for a good book on Dark Matter, but the choices are limited.

I think that as we start to move forward in science we really need to start considering accounting for Dark Matter.

a reply to: Archivalist

Maybe it is not the mass that is curving space, maybe the curvature of space around mass is associated with something other than mass..... the latest is that the Mass we know of only accounts for about 2-5% of our universe. This means there is an awful lot out there that can be causing a lot of what we think we know.