Entropy and Life after Death

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 11 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Almost, but not quite. You may want to read up just a litle bit more.


You typically don't use the wavelength when it's IR. See also bolometry.

Context - we're talking about IR thermal measurement here. He's not getting that. No point segueing off into Wien displacements and blackbody measurement while the guy's thinking that somehow his entire memory is somehow encoded into body heat fluctuations at the moment of death.


Only replying to your response to me.
I disagree with the theory he has given, but that's neither here nor there.
Your initial statements about what heat is would be what I was addressing when I stated that you are close, but need to read up a little more




posted on May, 11 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   

This heat carries the the information that makes you


How does this 'heat' carry the information exactly? Lets try a tangible example, is it like a computer packet?

Saying it carries information means it needs to be readable, or at least have some kind of on and off state. So far temperature has proven to be just one dimensional in terms of on a number line.





But every time a bit of information is erased, we know it doesn't disappear. It goes out into the environment. It may be horribly scrambled and confused, but it never really gets lost. It's just converted into a different form.


This analogy makes no sense because it's all just 0's and 1's, when you turn the 1 to a 0, you're removing a super small amount of energy from the state to turn a bit to its empty state, this energy just only carries a '1' (or whatever is defined as the package of energy in joules required to turn a zero to a one), which by the above stuff you're trying to say will only be a 1. Therefore only 1's will get shot off into the atmosphere, which a string of 1111111111111111111111...etc, tell us nothing. This dissipates into the atmosphere in random directions which are absorbed by other things...etc, but that information (assuming it even carries something), just has the energy to turn a 0 to a 1. It's only memory is 1 -> 0. When a picture is erased, each 1 is converted into a zero, and the zeroes are left over. It doesn't dump it all at once.
edit on 5/11/12 by NuclearMitochondria because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


First, I never talked about a melting coin and compared to a biological system. That's just silly and something a junior high school student wouldn't do.

Secondly, theres a lack of understanding of information, macrostates, microstates and things like black hole thermodynamics.

It's not that hard to grasp.

Most people will say if you were to get a letter in the mail and tear it up into tiny pieces without reading it then the information is lost and destroyed. Not so with physics.

When you tear the letter up into tiny pieces information actually increases. How can this be some may ask? If you destroyed the letter then information is destroyed. The letter was an arrangement of microstates in a low state of entropy. The torn up letter is an arrangement of microstates in a high state of entropy.

Now why is there more information available in the torn up letter?

This is because there more ways to arrange the torn up letter. I can read the letter and that's it. I can take the torn up letter to convey all sorts of information. Say a person lives with a roomate and he tells him. Of one piece of the letter is taped to the door then I'm alone. If two pieces then I'm with my girl so leave and come back. He can make up a whole system of information with the torn up letter.

The mistake Bedlam is making stems from a lack of understanding of information. You said:


That information can easily be reduced to noise. And yours will be when you die. Not only will the information be reduced to noise, but the system upon which it ran will be disordered.


Again, this shows a lack of understanding when it comes to information. Here's some info on information entropy.


Information Entropy is a concept from information theory. It tells how much information there is in an event. In general, the more uncertain or random the event is, the more information it will contain. The concept of information entropy was created by a mathematician. He was named Claude Elwood Shannon.

It has applications in many areas, including lossless data compression, statistical inference, cryptography and recently in other disciplines as biology, physics or machine learning.

Let's look at an example. If someone is told something they already know, the information they get is very small. It will be pointless for them to be told something they already know. This information would have very low entropy.

If they were told about something they knew little about, they would get much new information. This information would be very valuable to them. They would learn something. This information would have high entropy.


simple.wikipedia.org...

So again we have established when you die heat leaves the body in the form of Infrared Radiation. This infrared radiation may be in a higher entropy state than the human body but it doesn't mean the information is gone or goes poof.

If I tear up this piece of paper with writing on it, I'm not destroying or making information vanish. It's just going to a higher state of entropy. This isn't to compare a piece of paper to a biological system, it's just another illustration of entropy and information.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


You still haven't answered how this happens, it just seems like a proposed theory.
Can you please educate us on where you get your sources for these micro'macrostates? What do black holes have to do with this?

No offense, but every time you make a post it's always missing key points that just leave us confused and makes me think you're just using pseudo-scientific terms out of mid air.


I've done a degree in science and covered every science: Computer science, biology, chemistry, physics and math (calculus...etc). Your use of entropy by its standard definition to infer properties on non-entropic physical manifestations is missing a gap that is not being explained (or you're just trolling)



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by NuclearMitochondria
 


Of course I answered your questions but you claim you have all these degrees in these different areas and then you have to ask what black holes have to do with it, it makes me question the things you and the other guy are saying.

You're asking what do black holes have to do with it and the other guy is comparing melted coins to biological systems at death. You can't make this stuff up.

Do you know anything about the black hole information paradox, black hole thermodynamics or black hole entropy? I explained in a way that everyone can understand it and it's funny that you two guys claiming to have all these degrees asks questions like this.

If you don't understand what I'm saying or how black holes relate to what I'm saying when I talk about information, then all I can say is that you need to study the areas I mentioned above. I can understand if someone without "all of your degrees" asked this question.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by NuclearMitochondria
 


There was a Danish draper, who had an interest in making microscopes, who held no actual degree or formal education, that first illuminated the world to microbes, cells, and the like (Antonie van Leeuwenhoek). It is the ability to dive into the imagination and use creativity, even if this is contrary and seemingly irrational, that often spurs new inventions or discoveries. I'm trying to follow the conversation so I can comment directly on it - yet I had to say that the whole 'I have a degree' thing is so tired and is often a catalyst for transcending the status quo.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


It seems to me that creation is linked to destructive cycles and that matter has been noted to swing from states of perceived organization to states of chaos and back again. Breaking down and building again - who would want to live in the same state forever anyway? Imagine being immortal as yourself - would be pretty damn boring after a while. I like science, but often look at the intent behind life. It seems that life utilizes cycles of entropy and organization but the keyword here is that it is all part of existence. You are alive now, and that is all you know, Never once did I feel sad about watching someone die - it has always been a beautiful experience as one truly appreciates the person and the life they lived. How apathetic would you be if nothing ever changed?



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by NuclearMitochondria
 


Of course I answered your questions but you claim you have all these degrees in these different areas and then you have to ask what black holes have to do with it, it makes me question the things you and the other guy are saying.

Please quote me the exact text that answered my questions so we can analyze this further.


You're asking what do black holes have to do with it and the other guy is comparing melted coins to biological systems at death. You can't make this stuff up.

Can't make up what stuff?
I read over everything that had black holes in it, and none of them had anything to do with the actual content you're missing, and thus confusing everyone with.


Do you know anything about the black hole information paradox, black hole thermodynamics or black hole entropy? I explained in a way that everyone can understand it and it's funny that you two guys claiming to have all these degrees asks questions like this.

If you don't understand what I'm saying or how black holes relate to what I'm saying when I talk about information, then all I can say is that you need to study the areas I mentioned above. I can understand if someone without "all of your degrees" asked this question.


I decided to google around and see exactly what's going on. When you respond you go in circles and make no sense to me, so before I call troll I did some research.
You're confusing 'information' put forth by Stephen Hawking with what is believed to be soul energy. This is the fatal flaw in this theory. Information as described by the above theories that you quoted me only deals with quantum states. You're saying this stuff contains more than that, which is equivalent to saying binary can hold more than a 1 and a 0.

The reason why you're confusing people who've actually attained knowledge gathering in this area is because the general public has no idea what you're talking about, so they just go 'yeah' because they don't possess the proper information to discern non-sense from sense.

The fundamental flaw here is you're trying to apply a property to something and turn it into a two or three dimensional grid of values from a one dimensional object that cannot possibly enter a second or third dimension of measurement because of how it's defined.




Originally posted by arielburns
reply to post by NuclearMitochondria
 


There was a Danish draper, who had an interest in making microscopes, who held no actual degree or formal education, that first illuminated the world to microbes, cells, and the like (Antonie van Leeuwenhoek). It is the ability to dive into the imagination and use creativity, even if this is contrary and seemingly irrational, that often spurs new inventions or discoveries. I'm trying to follow the conversation so I can comment directly on it - yet I had to say that the whole 'I have a degree' thing is so tired and is often a catalyst for transcending the status quo.


Imagination is how the best ideas are invented. That's how DNA was discovered actually, at a bar where Watson and Crick were probably drunk/high and put together the double helix... in a pub.
As stated previously: With my possession of a degree in this area, chances are I have much more knowledge in this area and therefore can debunk stuff that comes through here. I do try and be objective, as a scientist, I stick my neck out there when I go searching for life after death stuff. I'll be bold enough to say that I do believe in life after death, just I have no idea *what* it is, nor how the energy is transferred. Hell, I'd even say it goes beyond our classical physics and is totally something else if it exists.

For now though, the above poster is confusing everyone by mixing quantum mechanics which is not dynamic, and applying an extra dimension of measurement on that which makes no sense because you just can't do that as they're human decided measurements. In addition, he's confusing the word 'information' as used by world renowned physicists with tangible information that can be applied at a lower level, when it's just a synonym for quantum states... which based off of the OP's post he's not to sure about and I'm willing to take a bet he has no idea about any of the core subject matter.


Again: I have no problem with people offering UNIQUE view points. I love reading new thoughts on stuff, but when I ask the OP questions for him to go into more specific detail, he ends up saying more confusing stuff and garbage like "well you don't get it so thats too bad".

If he truly understands it, he should be able to dumb it down to a level that anyone can understand, right? So far *no one* in this thread successfully has.
edit on 5/12/12 by NuclearMitochondria because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by NuclearMitochondria
 


Clearly you don't know what your talking about so you did what most message board scholars do. You decided to "google around" and look for a 5 second response instead of trying to understand what you were reading. I'm glad you decided to "google around" and look into these areas like I suggested but I wish you would have done more than just "google around" just to make a quick response on a message board.

First you talk about soul energy. I never said anything about soul energy but of course you say that to try and debate a point that I never made. The reason you try to separate information and what you call soul energy is because you realized I was right after you "googled around."

What you tried to do in your post is try to debate against an argument that I never made because again, after you "googled around" you realized I was right. Here's some of what you said that you can't find anywhere in any of my post.


You're confusing 'information' put forth by Stephen Hawking with what is believed to be soul energy. This is the fatal flaw in this theory.....You're saying this stuff contains more than that.


I never said anything about soul energy. So what your debating against is an argument that was never made. You had to make up this argument because after you "googled around" and read about these things you realized I was right.

So you couldn't come back to the message board and say, you're right because you're a message board scholar with all of these degrees. So you decided to write a post debating soul energy. I have been saying over and over again the heat in the form of infrared radiation leaves the body at death. I have never mentioned any soul energy.

The reason you did this is because the "information" talked about by Hawking and Susskind can be carried in the heat that leaves the body at death. So you couldn't debate the heat that leaves the body in the form of infrared radiation as I have been talking about throughout the thread so you had to debate against this soul energy that I never talked about.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NuclearMitochondria
 



Yeah well, your complaints with his arguments are making me laugh. If his premises are really that misappropriated at least see the humor. I don't watch movies often, but in Dogma the lady God was asked about the meaning of life - to which she honked his nose (beep beep). Isn't there some point you think about swinging around on trees with a cigar in your mouth, debating nonsense to a ridiculous degree and then think, 'hey, let's go get a banana.."



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Hhaha!! That googling around bit is quite the song and dance. You clearly have the superior genetics and you know how that makes us felines purrr.

Material science has done a 'matter' of muddling things up a bit. Many esoteric texts have related that our essence is fanned in an axiomatic fashion - as our state here is merely an extension of a universal state of being. The veil of ignorance we impose on ourselves here is for creative value, to explore beyond the ultimate truths into paradox. Too much of an emphasis on constant states can be a distraction and a labyrinth. Go down the rabbit hole, deeper, deeper and find out that physicality is an illusive and changing operating system that will dip and dive no matter what direction you take. Close to the ultimate answer? Blip. New rules. Think you know more? Blip. Now we have a new theory and your degree is rendered useless. Hubris is the only thing being truly tested. Know without thinking, truth without words. ? (Why I'm an artist who ceaselessly studies science to find the true nature of our material world is for us to learn futility.)

I like you both. :-)



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by NuclearMitochondria
 


Clearly you don't know what your talking about so you did what most message board scholars do. You decided to "google around" and look for a 5 second response instead of trying to understand what you were reading. I'm glad you decided to "google around" and look into these areas like I suggested but I wish you would have done more than just "google around" just to make a quick response on a message board.

I google around just to see if the junk you're spouting forth contains some possible bit of data I might have never learned.
So far it proved thus far you're just talking garbage.


First you talk about soul energy. I never said anything about soul energy but of course you say that to try and debate a point that I never made.

Yes you did, this entire thread is about soul energy. You're claiming infrared energy is responsible for life after death. This is believed to be the soul. If you disagree here, then you're proving yourself to be a troll and I'll inform the moderators immediately.


You're confusing 'information' put forth by Stephen Hawking with what is believed to be soul energy. This is the fatal flaw in this theory.....You're saying this stuff contains more than that.

I never said anything about soul energy. So what your debating against is an argument that was never made. You had to make up this argument because after you "googled around" and read about these things you realized I was right.

But you ARE talking about the information put forth by the above. If you disagree with this, then you've already falsified you're statements willingly and thus are an idiot, or a troll. No, I don't take your notion to be correct since it has no actual base in science and every time someone who knows more than the average person questions you, then you proceed to bring up topics designed to confuse people (ex: macro/micro states) and upon some basic research you can see that everything you've said up to this point makes no sense -- because what you're talking about makes no logical sense.


So you couldn't come back to the message board and say, you're right because you're a message board scholar with all of these degrees. So you decided to write a post debating soul energy. I have been saying over and over again the heat in the form of infrared radiation leaves the body at death. I have never mentioned any soul energy.

If I was wrong, I'd admit to being wrong.
I also find it hilarious that you dedicated this much text to me mentioning soul energy. Is your argument so flimsy that you have to pick out one fragment and debate hugely about it? How about you talk about my other points?


The reason you did this is because the "information" talked about by Hawking and Susskind can be carried in the heat that leaves the body at death. So you couldn't debate the heat that leaves the body in the form of infrared radiation as I have been talking about throughout the thread so you had to debate against this soul energy that I never talked about.

Answered previously

QUESTIONS:

This heat carries the the information that makes you, you.

How does this make you, you? What PROPERTY makes it you?


This is why people might feel cold if they come in contact with a ghost. It's because of entropy and the ghost is you at a lower temperature. This is why ghost create cold spots.

How is it a cold spot if the "ghost" is at equilibrium with the room temperature? It's either at room temperature, or its not.

How does entropy change temperature? Entropy is an abstract method of energy determination.


This is why Ghost Hunters us Infrared Cameras when looking for Ghost. When a person dies, the heat radiates from there body in the form of infrared radiation. This radiation carries the information about the energy distribution of the body it leaves at death. This is why Ghost are shaped like and look like the dead person the heat radiated from.


Do you have any actual proof that some infrared measurement is in fact a ghost? We are on the science forum so proof should not be asked for... it's assumed when youre posting here but just in case you forgot that we're not in the Gray Area forums.



Again, when heat leaves the body at death in the form of infrared radiation, the transmission of data (the human body and experience) doesn't die.


Then how do you explain what happens when we reach equilbrium with the room temperature? We are still giving off infrared radiation even when we die. In fact, everything in the universe except things at 0 degrees K give off infrared radiation. Therefore, how do you include that into this notion of yours, since it means that no ghost can exist for a very long time since the so-claimed 'information'



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by arielburns
reply to post by NuclearMitochondria
 



Yeah well, your complaints with his arguments are making me laugh. If his premises are really that misappropriated at least see the humor. I don't watch movies often, but in Dogma the lady God was asked about the meaning of life - to which she honked his nose (beep beep). Isn't there some point you think about swinging around on trees with a cigar in your mouth, debating nonsense to a ridiculous degree and then think, 'hey, let's go get a banana.."


How are they funny?

Question for you: Are you a multi account of someone, or the OP? This post is completely off topic and doesn't add anything to the conversation. I'll just report this and see what a mod says.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
EDIT: Double post removed
edit on 5/12/12 by NuclearMitochondria because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by NuclearMitochondria
 


Again your whole post makes zero sense. If you can't understand these concepts you should do more than just "google around." You need to actual read and then try to understand what you're reading longer than 5 minutes so you can respond on a message board.

This one line in your post makes you look real silly.


Yes you did, this entire thread is about soul energy.


I never said anything about soul energy and you keep mentioning because you have no argument against what I'm saying because you only took a few minutes to "google around" and your goal was to run back to the message board to try to show that you're a message board scholar with degrees.

You did it again. You asked:


How is it a cold spot if the "ghost" is at equilibrium with the room temperature?


I never said this. I said the body is at equilibrium with room temperature at death. So once again you want to rush and debate against something that I never said. You did this because you're more worried about being a message board scholar than actually taking the time to read what you're responding to.

You asked:


Do you have any actual proof that some infrared measurement is in fact a ghost?


Yes and I have listed the evidence in this thread over and over again. You just don't want to debate it because you can't. So you talk about soul energy and ghosts at room temperature. You try to debate things I never said because you can't debate the things I actually said throughout the thread.

You also said:


This heat carries the the information that makes you, you. [quoting me]

How does this make you, you? What PROPERTY makes it you?


Information as I have described it numerous times yet you tried to avoid it by talking about soul energy. Everything you do involves information. Every thought, every idea, every memory, every relationship. When I say you I'm talking about the quantum system that's you not the macroscopic dead body. You do understand the difference between macroscopic and microscopic systems? Do you understand how microstates give rise to macrostates and how this pertains to things like information or S = k log W?

When you learn how to debate and ask questions about things I actually said in the thread, then the debate will rise above the level of you steadily debating things that I never said.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by NuclearMitochondria
 


Again your whole post makes zero sense. If you can't understand these concepts you should do more than just "google around." You need to actual read and then try to understand what you're reading longer than 5 minutes so you can respond on a message board.

It's hard to understand your concept when its fundamentally flawed to begin with, and you seem to have blindfolders and and don't realize that you're wrong




"How is it a cold spot if the "ghost" is at equilibrium with the room temperature?"
I never said this.

Derp.
You said:

It's because of entropy and the ghost is you at a lower temperature. This is why ghost create cold spots.




You asked:

Do you have any actual proof that some infrared measurement is in fact a ghost?

Yes and I have listed the evidence in this thread over and over again.

Okay then, paste me the proof in your next post. Quote exactly where you sourced this proof on. Make it succinct please.




Information as I have described it numerous times yet you tried to avoid it by talking about soul energy. Everything you do involves information. Every thought, every idea, every memory, every relationship. When I say you I'm talking about the quantum system that's you not the macroscopic dead body. You do understand the difference between macroscopic and microscopic systems? Do you understand how microstates give rise to macrostates and how this pertains to things like information or S = k log W?

You have NO idea what you're talking about. You're just dropping formula's that you have no idea about. For the record, it's ln, not log. If you actually knew the formula you were attempting to use, Boltzmann's formula is euler based. Putting no number means you use base 10, but that's fundamentally wrong with that equation. I'm sure someone of your 'intelligence and caliber' would not much such an amateur mistake, right?

Yes, I understand microstates and macrostates, but you don't.

Can you at least -- next time -- learn the definitions you're using before posting before making a bigger fool out of yourself?



EDIT: I got an idea, lets take this further:
=================================

Please tell me what macro and microstates you're referring to upon death, or the ghost or w/e, and why you're calling them that. This will allow me to decide if you're a troll and I should report you.
If you don't think you have to specify macro or microstates, then you better not post here again or you'll confirm you're a troll.
edit on 5/12/12 by NuclearMitochondria because: (no reason given)
edit on 5/12/12 by NuclearMitochondria because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by NuclearMitochondria
 


Now you're really starting to look silly. These are some of the stages of grief when a message board scholar realizes that it's obvious they don't know what their talking about.

First they try to debate against things you never said then they call you a troll and threaten to report you. Sure signs of desperation. You said:


This will allow me to decide if you're a troll and I should report you.


LOL. You can't be serious. Just because you don't understand what I'm saying you know feel frustrated. You should take some deep breathes and try to understand these things instead of getting upset and then looking silly.

What let's me know you don't understand is your 5 minute "google around" session. Anyone who understands things like black hole thermodynamics, black hole entropy, microstates and macrostates wouldn't have to "google around."

If you understood these things when I said this earlier you wouldn't have to "google around" to know what I'm talking about.


Again, this goes back to entropy and information. We then have to talk about macrostates and microstates.

If 3 coins are being flipped there are 8 possible outcomes.

hhh
hht
htt
hth
thh
htt
tht
tth
ttt

There are 4 macrostates which are 3 heads, 2 heads, 1 heads and 0 heads. So 8 microstates produce 4 macrostates. This is call multiplicity, W. This just says there are many microstates that can produce the same macrostate. Let's look at this even further.

Crystalline Ice at 273K has 101,299,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 accessible microstates. The human body is about 310K. These microstates can't be destroyed.

If I throw my DVD Player into a black hole, the information will not be lost. The macroscopic DVD will be scrambled and unrecognizable but the microstates that produced the macrostate (DVD Player) would be spread out over the event horizon.

So when you die, your macrostate body dies but your microstates don't and this information leaves the body as infrared radiation (Heat) at death.


The problem here is, you're not trying to understand what I'm saying. You're trying to show that you're a message board scholar. If you would have took the time to read and absorb the information instead of writing about soul energy when I never mentioned it, the debate would be elevated past I'm frustrated and I want to report you.

S = K log W means entropy is the logarithm of multiplicity. It's written on Boltzmann's tomb.

upload.wikimedia.org...

Again, you just don't understand. S = K log W and S = K In W both In and log means the natural logarithm. So both equations say that Entropy equals Boltzmann's Constant times the natural log of multiplicity.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   

These are some of the stages of grief when a message board scholar realizes that it's obvious they don't know what their talking about.

No grief here, but unempathetic embarrassment for you.


LOL. You can't be serious. Just because you don't understand what I'm saying you know feel frustrated. You should take some deep breathes and try to understand these things instead of getting upset and then looking silly.


The problem is you've deluded yourself into believing that you have a clue about what you're talking about, and then you say illogical and incorrect things and when people who call you out on it with "wait a minute, you're wrong", then you just go into the same defensive shell saying the exact same things each time. You literally are a broken record and keep going back to the same argument.
Has nothing to do with my education, you're diverting the attention away from the issue. Facts are facts, and you're not bringing them forward.


What let's me know you don't understand is your 5 minute "google around" session. Anyone who understands things like black hole thermodynamics, black hole entropy, microstates and macrostates wouldn't have to "google around."

Anyone who is versed in science can go read a scientific topic and usually understand it. You it seems would rather spend tons of time debating a flawed viewpoint instead of educating yourself and making yourself seem less inept every time you post.
How exactly did you come about learning this stuff? Did you just suddenly pick up statistical mechanics without touching calculus?



If you understood these things when I said this earlier you wouldn't have to "google around" to know what I'm talking about.

It's not that I don't understand it, it's that you are taking a concept and moving it into a territory that has *nothing* to do with it. You delude yourself into believing the confusing of people who know this stuff is them not knowing it, when in fact we are going "wait... you're wrong, how can you even think this way?"
And even by that, it's not like this is some gray area like souls or heaven, this is you taking a scientific principle and skewing it beyond logic.

Lets take a look at the following past your coin example because it doesn't demonstrate much that we don't already know:


If I throw my DVD Player into a black hole, the information will not be lost. The macroscopic DVD will be scrambled and unrecognizable but the microstates that produced the macrostate (DVD Player) would be spread out over the event horizon.

So when you die, your macrostate body dies but your microstates don't and this information leaves the body as infrared radiation (Heat) at death.

This means absolutely nothing, because you can literally make anyone out of the microstates you're suggesting. I can even take it further and turn everyone into basic quarks. This still fulfills your example because were again going down to a common denominator even further down that microstates, but in reality its just a mess of states that you cannot make heads or tails of.Having all the microstates in the world does you nothing unless its assembled into the exact same way it was before.

Likewise, it's like saying "oh well were all made of carbon, oxygen and nitrogen... and hydrogen! If we break all the bonds, we still have ourselves there but were just in a soup.
Again this means NOTHING because it's just the building blocks.


The problem here is, you're not trying to understand what I'm saying. You're trying to show that you're a message board scholar. If you would have took the time to read and absorb the information instead of writing about soul energy when I never mentioned it, the debate would be elevated past I'm frustrated and I want to report you.

Dude get over the soul energy. You keep bringing it up because you have no points to rebuttal with



S = K log W means entropy is the logarithm of multiplicity. It's written on Boltzmann's tomb.

upload.wikimedia.org...

Again, you just don't understand. S = K log W and S = K In W both In and log means the natural logarithm. So both equations say that Entropy equals Boltzmann's Constant times the natural log of multiplicity.


lmfao -- no. K log W DOES NOT EQUAL K ln W.

Try it on a calculator: Does 5 log[10] 6 = 5 ln 6?

First:
Its Ln, not In. It means 'natural Log". If you took any kind of math you'd know that they are not equal.
So we've confirmed you have not the slightest clue you're talking about in math, and you're trying to convey a statistical mechanics property? No wonder you have no idea what you're talking about


~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question for you:

So what happens when the IR is absorbed by someone standing near? The heat is transferred to someone else, and your microstate data is lost and converted to something totally different. Now what?



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by NuclearMitochondria
 


First S = K Log W and S = K ln W say the same thing. Just the fact that you don't know this should make you throw your degrees out of the _

I made a mistake typing I. I was watching the NBA Playoff games while typing (Go Lakers). See how easy it is to say I've made a mistake instead of debating against things that were never said?

So both equations say that Entropy equals Boltzmann's Constant times the natural log of multiplicity. Boltzmann's definition of entropy S = k ln W (where W is the number of ways of arranging a system and k is Boltzmann's constant). It can also written as S = K log W as it is written on his tombstone.

Here's more:


In statistical thermodynamics, Boltzmann's equation is a probability equation relating the entropy S of an ideal gas to the quantity W, which is the number of microstates corresponding to a given macrostate:

S = k \log W \

where k is Boltzmann's constant equal to 1.38062 x 10−23 joule/kelvin and W is the number of microstates consistent with the given macrostate.

"Log" is the natural logarithm,so the formula can also be notated as:

S = k \ln W \

In short, the Boltzmann formula shows the relationship between entropy and the number of ways the atoms or molecules of a thermodynamic system can be arranged.


en.wikipedia.org...


You said:


This means absolutely nothing, because you can literally make anyone out of the microstates you're suggesting. I can even take it further and turn everyone into basic quarks. This still fulfills your example because were again going down to a common denominator even further down that microstates, but in reality its just a mess of states that you cannot make heads or tails of.Having all the microstates in the world does you nothing unless its assembled into the exact same way it was before.


Again, this shows you don't understand black hole thermodynamics and the whole debate between Susskind, Hawking, Thorne and others. The reason for confusion is because you're trying to debate an issue that you don't understand and one that took these men years to resolve. You just "googled around" for a few minutes. I suspect if you really had all of these Degrees you would already know what I'm talking about. But I will explain this as if I'm talking to an 11th grade high school class and hopefully you will begin to get it and realize your arguments make zero sense. Let's do this in 3 steps.

1. Lets say that there's an island of sand. This island is covered by rocks. In this scenario the microstates would be the sand and the macrostates would be the rocks. There's many ways to arrange the grains of sand and on this special island, the arrangement of the grains of sand determine the rocks that will be on the island. If one of the rocks falls off of the island into the sea the rock isn't dead because the information that produced the rock is in the arrangement of sand and not the rock itself.

2. In this next step we will graduate to black holes. When matter falls into a black hole, the macrostate can't be found but information about the arrangement of microstates that produced the macrostate is on a 2 dimensional surface area called the event horizon. This led some like Susskind to the Holographic Principle. Essentially volume is an illusion of microstate information. So black holes as well as all matter can be described not by it's volume but a 2 dimensional surface area 1/4 the size of it's volume.

3. The next step we will graduate to death. The reason people hold on to what I call macroscopic illusion, is because we're isolated from the whole. We're a macrostate connected to a quantum system of microstates. Each macrostate is a snapshot of an arrangement of microstates. So it's like a tree (microstates) with many branches (macrostates). These macrostates are isolated from other macrostates of the same quantum system. When you die, the macrostate (body) dies but the microstates (quantum system) doesn't. So at death the macrostate dies but the microstates lives on in different mediums like heat that leaves the body in the form of infrared radiation or in another macrostate.

The problem is we're disconnected because we haven't mastered the microscopic (quantum computing, nanotechnology) like we have the macroscopic (building buildings, houses and cars). Eventually we will be able to build things from a microscopic level and even transfer ourselves into things like virtual environments. At this point, many people believe the branch (macrostate) is the sum of who they are. In reality we're a quantum system (microstates) that produce many (macrostates). This multiplicity is parallel realities occupied by singular macrostates which are isolated from the quantum system.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I'm cutting out any math response because you still can't comprehend the base value of a math system, and I think everyone else has just given up on this gargantuan failure of a thread. Since I believe you're way beyond hope, I've contemplated not even responding and letting this topic wither and die as it should since you've proven time and time again that you still have no idea what you're talking about,

But I'll give you one last chance.

Answer these for clarification AS POSTED EARLIER but you dodged them for some unknown reason.

1. What background knowledge do you have? You're not just a grade 12 kiddie who hasn't even taken an intro university physics or calculus course, right?

2.

So what happens when the IR is absorbed by someone standing near? The heat is transferred to someone else, and your microstate data is lost and converted to something totally different. Now what?






Now I'd like you to show me proof of the following because I don't believe what you're saying until you provide me proof. Pretend I'm some 16 year old kid who dropped out of high school and I want to learn, show me proof for the following information:


In this next step we will graduate to black holes. When matter falls into a black hole, the macrostate can't be found but information about the arrangement of microstates that produced the macrostate is on a 2 dimensional surface area called the event horizon.

Proof please


This led some like Susskind to the Holographic Principle.

Proof please


So black holes as well as all matter can be described not by it's volume but a 2 dimensional surface area 1/4 the size of it's volume.

Proof please


We're a macrostate connected to a quantum system of microstates.

Proof please


This should be a good start.
Do NOT question dodge the first two





top topics
 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join