Church Of Thermodynamics

[BenRayfield]

The laws of thermodynamics contradict themselves unless dualism is true, some kind of dualism in physics.

When calculated on mass and energy alone, the laws of thermodynamics (which most scientists accept as facts) are accurate, but when calculated on everything we have observed, they contradict themselves, and anything that has at least 1 contradiction can not be a "law" of physics.

Breach of rule 4 removed. Do not copy and paste material from other sites.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[Normal Dude]

Cool story, bro.

 

[Fnord]

Ya canna chenge tha laws o'physics!

But you can set them to music.

 

[Ziggurat]

The laws of thermodynamics contradict themselves unless dualism is true, some kind of dualism in physics.

What do you mean by this?

(1) Some kind of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism exists in physics

That description is so vague as to be meaningless. There's a link to wave-particle duality, but that's standard physics.

which would make the laws of thermodynamics a religion instead of science

Yeah, not so much.

Physics means how the universe works.

If there is no dualism in physics, then by definition, there is only 1 kind of thing in the universe.

This is such a trivial definition of "dualism" that it's obviously true of physics as it stands today.

Mass and energy are interchangible if you do certain things

But linear momentum and energy are not. Angular momentum and energy are not. Charge and energy are not. All of those things need to be conserved independently of each other. So obviously there isn't "only 1 kind of thing in the universe."

Its a common idea that everything is made of vibrating strings or surfaces or other equations.

String theory is as of yet untested. It is, at this point, a purely mathematical theory, with no connection to any experiment, and so should not be considered a physics theory.

The "big bang theory" says the "laws of physics" changed during the first fraction of a second of the big bang, or that is where they formed into what they are now.

Not exactly. Rather, the big bang theory cannot predict what happens at the singularity. We don't know if any laws changed.

There is also speculation about the laws of physics changing or not working the same way in some parts of black holes or when enough particles simultaneously hit each other at near the speed of light.

No. That is a mischaracterization of our expectations. Physicists don't expect that the laws actually change, they expect our current theories to become inadequate. But the laws of physics are whatever they are, regardless of the circumstance.

Perhaps an example would help illuminate the difference. Special Relativity and Newtonian mechanics give two different equations for the momentum of a moving object. We know that Special Relativity is more accurate, at all speeds. But at low enough speeds, Newtonian mechanics still provides an excellent approximation to the special relativity equations. It's not that physics changes as you go to high speeds, it's that the old theory becomes inaccurate at speeds close to c. Note that accurate vs. inaccurate is different than right vs. wrong: the Newtonian equations are wrong at all speeds, but it's accurate at low speeds. Similarly, our current theories are accurate where we can currently test them, but under extreme conditions which we cannot yet test, they may become inaccurate.

Thermodynamics says disorder increases over time

No it doesn't. It says entropy does. I know how to define and calculate entropy rigorously. I do not know how to define "disorder" rigorously.

and eventually spreads evenly through the whole universe

Nope, doesn't need to do that.

But the third law of thermodynamics says very accurately what the universe will become and continue to be forever after that. It says heat will spread out evenly to everything and forever approach some constant minimum heat.

If you want to talk about thermodynamics, especially if you're going to be making bold claims like it being possibly wrong, you need to be precise. And you are NOT being precise. In fact, you are using the term "heat" completely wrong.

Heat is NOT thermal energy, and it is NOT temperature. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy. If the universe experiences "heat death", it will approach some uniform temperature, but heat will go to zero.

That is a very well defined and accurate pattern, which contradicts the claim of thermodynamics that patterns will become disorder.

Again, we have the problem that thermodynamics doesn't describe disorder, it describes entropy. And a uniform temperature IS a maximum for entropy. It's rather easy to demonstrate this with statistical mechanics.

I did not take thermodynamics out of context.

You just took it wrongly.

 

[BenRayfield]

Fnord, do you really expect me to believe the arbitrary-appearing numbers in the physics equations have to be those exact numbers for some logical reason? What is that reason?

 

[bobhope2112]

Dang, I thought this might turn into an interesting sort of exchange wherein someone's peculiar notions would be addressed by a more conventional perspective, and then subsequently defended by the original claimant; a sort of casual debate of ideas.

But no, it seems like you're more interested in firing of more aspersions without having to backup what you've last twittered on about. Bummer.

 

[BenRayfield]

Ziggurat, I mean "dualism" in a very general way. Some people think there is a dualism between an afterlife and physical reality. Before more accurate equations were found, most scientists thought there was a dualism between mass and energy. Dualism simply means there are 2 or more kinds of thing and there is no way to convert 1 to the other, no way to rotate or fractally zoom it or merge it to be the other.

My theory of everything is: The Kolmogorov Complexity of the universe is 0.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity

I am not a dualist. When I see things that appear separate in physics, that does not contradict my theory because it says they all exist simultaneously. Its most similar to this theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_IV:_Ultimate_Ensemble I've offered no proof of this theory, but its important for there to be a consistent possibility where thermodynamics is not completely true, which tips the scale against any assumptions people made about thermodynamics just because they could not think of any other way it could be. For example, I will not assume space and time are anything more than statistical patterns that happen in this part of the universe.

No. That is a mischaracterization of our expectations. Physicists don't expect that the laws actually change, they expect our current theories to become inadequate. But the laws of physics are whatever they are, regardless of the circumstance.

Perhaps an example would help illuminate the difference. Special Relativity and Newtonian mechanics give two different equations for the momentum of a moving object. We know that Special Relativity is more accurate, at all speeds. But at low enough speeds, Newtonian mechanics still provides an excellent approximation to the special relativity equations. It's not that physics changes as you go to high speeds, it's that the old theory becomes inaccurate at speeds close to c. Note that accurate vs. inaccurate is different than right vs. wrong: the Newtonian equations are wrong at all speeds, but it's accurate at low speeds. Similarly, our current theories are accurate where we can currently test them, but under extreme conditions which we cannot yet test, they may become inaccurate.

If the laws of physics are exactly "The Kolmogorov Complexity of the universe is 0" then the laws of physics would never change but could appear to become any equations. I simply think the laws of physics are more general than most scientists think is possible. I can easily write the same thing without saying the laws of physics change. Instead, the laws of physics are the things that calculate new equations that would be written in physics books.

I'm agreeing with you. I'm proposing that the next step in physics (like from Newton to Einstein) is using thermodynamics in a fractal way instead of completely linear. It appears linear locally but for the whole universe is curved into a fractal.

I wrote:
Instead of it staying that way forever, which is a very linear view, I think our reality slowly changes from mass/energy/space/time/etc to such a pattern (predicted by the third law), and that pattern becomes part of a new "laws of physics", so its a rotation or a fractal zooming instead of the end of time. I think thermodynamics is a linear view of something that should be viewed as a fractal.

But linear momentum and energy are not. Angular momentum and energy are not. Charge and energy are not. All of those things need to be conserved independently of each other. So obviously there isn't "only 1 kind of thing in the universe."

Things appear separate until a common pattern is found. I think that pattern is "The Kolmogorov Complexity of the universe is 0". You're saying there is a dualism between those things that are conserved separately. I'm not disputing what has been observed in experiments, but I am disputing the assumption that it should be fit to the simplest linear equation that works.

If you want to talk about thermodynamics, especially if you're going to be making bold claims like it being possibly wrong, you need to be precise. And you are NOT being precise. In fact, you are using the term "heat" completely wrong.

Heat is NOT thermal energy, and it is NOT temperature. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy. If the universe experiences "heat death", it will approach some uniform temperature, but heat will go to zero.

I was thinking the right thing. I just used the word for its derivative instead of its magnitude.

Again, we have the problem that thermodynamics doesn't describe disorder, it describes entropy. And a uniform temperature IS a maximum for entropy. It's rather easy to demonstrate this with statistical mechanics.

You're ignoring what I said about thermodynamics applying equally to physics and energy. When its applied to energy, it describes entropy. When its applied to the laws of physics, or the patterns of physics that generate them over time, or the patterns that generate those... (up to "The Kolmogorov Complexity of the universe is 0"), then it describes any patterns of any complexity level, which includes "disorder". Entropy of the equations of physics is disorder of the things those equations calculate.

I've described 2 theories in this thread: 1 about thermodynamics, which I gave logical reasons for, and an other ("The Kolmogorov Complexity of the universe is 0") which I offered no proof of. Please keep the debate between them separate.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ziggurat, I mean "dualism" in a very general way.

That's not a very useful descriptor, then.

Dualism simply means there are 2 or more kinds of thing and there is no way to convert 1 to the other, no way to rotate or fractally zoom it or merge it to be the other.

In which case, there's still a dualism between charge and energy, linear momentum and energy, angular momentum and energy, and even lepton number and energy.

My theory of everything is: The Kolmogorov Complexity of the universe is 0.

And what does that mean? That there's only one possible way the universe could be? Perhaps, but 1) that's not a useful theory, whereas thermodynamics is, and 2) it's fundamentally unscientific. There's nothing testable about it. It is at best philosophy.

I am not a dualist. When I see things that appear separate in physics, that does not contradict my theory because it says they all exist simultaneously.

Indeed, that doesn't contradict your theory. In fact, nothing can contradict your theory. Your theory is unfalsifiable, and is therefore unscientific.

I'm agreeing with you. I'm proposing that the next step in physics (like from Newton to Einstein) is using thermodynamics in a fractal way instead of completely linear. It appears linear locally but for the whole universe is curved into a fractal.

That makes no sense. It's word salad. Your grammar is correct, the words you use are English, but they don't combine to create anything that actually has real meaning. You are making statements using terminology which you have invented without defining, and which I suspect you cannot define in any definite way.

Things appear separate until a common pattern is found. I think that pattern is "The Kolmogorov Complexity of the universe is 0". You're saying there is a dualism between those things that are conserved separately. I'm not disputing what has been observed in experiments, but I am disputing the assumption that it should be fit to the simplest linear equation that works.

Why not? You think Occam's Razor is a bad approach? It's an eminently sensible one. But let's set it aside anyways. You don't want to use the simplest equations which work (don't use the term "linear": it has a technical meaning which doesn't apply here). What, then, do you want to use? What equations should take their place? Because your theory offers nothing to replace them with.

You're ignoring what I said about thermodynamics applying equally to physics and energy. When its applied to energy, it describes entropy.

Nope. Energy doesn't enter into thermodynamics until you talk about temperature. Entropy is defined independently of energy.

When its applied to the laws of physics,

But it doesn't apply to the laws of physics. That doesn't even make sense. That's like trying to use French grammar rules to calculate poker odds. It's not applicable.

 

[BenRayfield]

In which case, there's still a dualism between charge and energy, linear momentum and energy, angular momentum and energy, and even lepton number and energy.

Then we agree. There is at least 1 dualism, or thermodynamics is only an approximation that can't be used to predict things as long-term as heat death of the universe. You chose dualism, and I can't disprove it. Its a philosophy question.

And what does that mean? That there's only one possible way the universe could be? Perhaps, but 1) that's not a useful theory, whereas thermodynamics is, and 2) it's fundamentally unscientific. There's nothing testable about it. It is at best philosophy.

It means, as many eastern philosophies speculate, that the universe is balanced in an infinite number of ways, that anything you can write in math exists somewhere, and when viewed together, all sums to zero, so technically the universe would not exist on average, if its kolmogorov complexity is 0. Kolmogorov complexity is the technical phrase for how much total information is in something. Example: "All the integers" contains less information than "all the integers except 37 and 50" because its shorter to write. It means the universe would fit in a 0 byte zip file, if it could be represented in a computer, which it can't except for an empty file.

That's my theory of everything which I offer no proof of, but I do plan to test it, in a very indirect way using a software I will build. Its described at this thread, but theres no proof it will work or not until I build it. I've got my reasons for thinking it will work, but its hard to explain. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=180216

Indeed, that doesn't contradict your theory. In fact, nothing can contradict your theory. Your theory is unfalsifiable, and is therefore unscientific.

It can be statistically falsified, with more certainty of it being false with each experiment that fails, by using statistics software the way I described in that link I just gave. If we don't see patterns where current physics equations say they won't be, then I would be wrong. But there is already evidence of the connection between quantum quality "random" number generators and people's state of mind, as researched by http://noosphere.princeton.edu which is similar to what I'm planning in that thread.

That makes no sense. It's word salad. Your grammar is correct, the words you use are English, but they don't combine to create anything that actually has real meaning. You are making statements using terminology which you have invented without defining, and which I suspect you cannot define in any definite way.

If I'm right then the limits of the "Incompleteness Theorem" apply to the laws of physics and inexact words are the best we can do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompleteness_theorem

Why not? You think Occam's Razor is a bad approach? It's an eminently sensible one. But let's set it aside anyways. You don't want to use the simplest equations which work (don't use the term "linear": it has a technical meaning which doesn't apply here). What, then, do you want to use? What equations should take their place? Because your theory offers nothing to replace them with.

That strategy is good for finding approximations, but it is also called "greedy search" which usually gets stuck on local maximums of whatever you're searching for (in this case its accuracy of physics equations). Occam's Razor is a bad strategy for finding the best solution. This is the part where you give up and say we should do the best we can and not try for perfection. We've done that. Now lets do both.

Nope. Energy doesn't enter into thermodynamics until you talk about temperature. Entropy is defined independently of energy.

Energy can be rotated, bent, whatever... to become mass. Is it also defined independently of mass?

But it doesn't apply to the laws of physics. That doesn't even make sense. That's like trying to use French grammar rules to calculate poker odds. It's not applicable.

I predicted that response in my first post. You are a dualist therefore you think the laws of physics apply to some things but not other things, depending on if those things are written in a physics book or are the atoms that the book is made of. You're agreeing with me. I said its dualism or incorrect thermodynamics. You're choosing dualism.

 

[Slimething]

Its a philosophy question.

It means, as many eastern philosophies speculate,...

Classic fail. This should be in fantasy, not science.

 

[BenRayfield]

Slimething the thing I said is a philosophy question is which of 2 things must be true. That's why the subject of this thread is that 1 of those 2 must be true, but I offered no proof of which it is.

When I said "as many eastern philosophies speculate" that was extra information and is not part of the logical explanation. For a few parts of what I wrote, I told which groups of people agree with it to avoid trivial responses like "rediculous, nobody thinks that is possible".



About thermodynamics experiments in general, there has never been any experiments done on a closed system, so if we're going by experimental data only (and things derived from it), then thermodynamics is about open systems. A bank vault appears closed, but quantum entanglement and the sun's radiation and waves of curved spacetime easily pass through its walls.

As long as a thermodynamics experiment is inside space and time, its deeply connected to other parts of the universe, therefore I can not count it as a closed system or an approximation of one. It's mostly an open system.

The only closed system I know of is the whole universe, because universe means everything that exists.

Therefore I hereby invalidate all physics theories that apply to closed systems and are based on experimental data. The experiments were not done in closed systems or approximations of closed systems. Garbage in. Garbage out.

 

[Thabiguy]

Ooh, I want to play too! Let's see if I can pull off the same kind of fallacious argumentation...!

I'll show that either 1) mathematics is a religion, or 2) it is not true that 1+1=2.

First, there must be only 1 kind of thing in mathematics, otherwise there would be dualism in mathematics, and that would mean mathematics is a religion.

Now, let's take the statement: 1+1=2, or "one added to one is two".

If there's only 1 kind of thing in mathematics, then any statement must apply to anything. But if we union one set with one set, the result is only one set, so the statement 1+1=2 is not true.

And if you claim that you can't apply such arithmetic to sets, then you're claiming there is more than 1 kind of thing in mathematics, therefore you're a dualist, therefore your mathematics is a religion and must not be taught in schools.

Ta-da!

Did I get the nonsense right?

 

[Mashuna]

Then we agree. There is at least 1 dualism, or thermodynamics is only an approximation that can't be used to predict things as long-term as heat death of the universe. You chose dualism, and I can't disprove it. Its a philosophy question.

You and Ziggurat appear to be using different meanings of the word dualism here.

 

[Mojo]

Ya canna chenge tha laws o'physics!

"In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" - Homer Simpson.

 

[Dancing David]

Um, the laws of thermodynamics are approximate models of how the universe behaves, there are no "Laws of Physics", there are approximate models and as data is gathered they change.

Now the universe seems to behave rather consistently, there are forces we label as 'gravitation' and we have a model of how gravitation works, but that does not mean that the Law of Gravitation is immutable. The way we model is likely to change.

 

[C_Felix]

Is BenReyfield actually Bishadi?

 

[dlorde]

The so-called 'Laws of Physics' are not 'made' of anything, they are conceptual.

 

[Fnord]

Fnord, do you really expect me to believe the arbitrary-appearing numbers in the physics equations have to be those exact numbers for some logical reason? What is that reason?

No, I expect you to continue to post inane comments that make my inane comments look profound.

 

[dlorde]

It means, as many eastern philosophies speculate, that the universe is balanced in an infinite number of ways, that anything you can write in math exists somewhere, and when viewed together, all sums to zero, so technically the universe would not exist on average, if its kolmogorov complexity is 0. Kolmogorov complexity is the technical phrase for how much total information is in something. Example: "All the integers" contains less information than "all the integers except 37 and 50" because its shorter to write. It means the universe would fit in a 0 byte zip file, if it could be represented in a computer, which it can't except for an empty file.

AIUI, the Kolmogorov Complexity defines the minimum amount of information required to specify or fully describe something - for a random string it will be the information in the string, for the Mandelbrot Set it will be the smallest algorithm that can produce it. For the universe it will be the minimal amount of information required to specify it - regardless of what attributes in the universe sum to zero. It seems to that all you've said by asserting that the Kolmogorov Complexity of the universe is zero is that in your theory the universe doesn't exist.

 

[Doubt]

Is BenReyfield actually Bishadi?

Nope. The writing is clear. It appears to be meaningless, however.