11 ms·

Interesting. So when you say that entropy is an arbitrary concept, is it simply determined by the likeliest macrostates? So in the case of planets vs dust cloud

Interesting. So when you say that entropy is an arbitrary concept, is it simply determined by the likeliest macrostates? So in the case of planets vs dust clouds, would we say that planets have higher entropy than dust clouds because entropy is defined as increasing with the likeliest states and we know that planets are likelier? To put it another way, could someone us their understanding of entropy to make predictions about a system's probability distribution beyond what they already know of it? Or is the entropy of a state purely defined by its proximity to a basin of attraction? I'm reminded of a debate in physics when the time light takes to travel between fixed points changes - a minority prefers to change the definition of C in m/s, while most prefer to change the value of m in the portion of the universe we're in at the time. To ask the same question in yet another way, Is Entropy like C to the majority? If it appears to decrease, it's our understanding of probabilities for the system that need to be reworked?

Geminidog 6y ago
>To ask the same question in yet another way, Is Entropy like C to the majority? If it appears to decrease, it's our understanding of probabilities for the system that need to be reworked? The popular intuition of entropy is often wrong and incomplete. The most general definition is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory) You will see it is inline with what I'm talking about. Entropy is an arbitrary concept defined relative to your choice of a system (entities axioms and theorems) and arbitrary macrostates and arbitary microstates defined for the system. Nobody has this down, they all talk about entropy without defining what kind of entropy they're talking about. Usually it's a half baked definition involving temperature and conservation of energy. In general when you add conservation of energy into your system, microstates and macrostates then it becomes more inline with the popular notion of entropy. Because for atoms to self organize into planets they must stop moving, but because of conservation of energy that motion must be transferred into something else. So in general self organization in one part of the universe must mean another part of the universe gets hotter. If I define a macrostate and microstate to account for conservation of energy meaning that my microstate must make sure that if a particle stops moving another one must start moving then things usually fits the notion of getting more disordered over time. If I define the microstate to be just the position of atoms then things appear to become ordered over time as the position of atoms coalesce into spheres. So there's different perspectives on it and all perspectives are true. It's just one perspective is examining the phenomenon of conservation of energy the other is not.
- SuoDuanDao 6y ago
  Not sure why you got flagged - I'll have a look at the link you suggested, maybe it'll help.

Geminidog 6y ago

>To ask the same question in yet another way, Is Entropy like C to the majority? If it appears to decrease, it's our understanding of probabilities for the system that need to be reworked? The popular intuition of entropy is often wrong and incomplete. The most general definition is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory) You will see it is inline with what I'm talking about. Entropy is an arbitrary concept defined relative to your choice of a system (entities axioms and theorems) and arbitrary macrostates and arbitary microstates defined for the system. Nobody has this down, they all talk about entropy without defining what kind of entropy they're talking about. Usually it's a half baked definition involving temperature and conservation of energy. In general when you add conservation of energy into your system, microstates and macrostates then it becomes more inline with the popular notion of entropy. Because for atoms to self organize into planets they must stop moving, but because of conservation of energy that motion must be transferred into something else. So in general self organization in one part of the universe must mean another part of the universe gets hotter. If I define a macrostate and microstate to account for conservation of energy meaning that my microstate must make sure that if a particle stops moving another one must start moving then things usually fits the notion of getting more disordered over time. If I define the microstate to be just the position of atoms then things appear to become ordered over time as the position of atoms coalesce into spheres. So there's different perspectives on it and all perspectives are true. It's just one perspective is examining the phenomenon of conservation of energy the other is not.

SuoDuanDao 6y ago
Not sure why you got flagged - I'll have a look at the link you suggested, maybe it'll help.