ITT, things you think are probably bullshit, but you can't

>>8225954
Things you think are bullshit because you don't know anything about them.

>>8225954
>increasing entropy is a fundamental property of the universe

The universe has an end m8

>>8225954
>dark matter

>>8225954
Just curious why you think increasing entropy isn't an inherent property of systems

File: 0_14c9eb_5ec28de8_orig.jpg (89KB, 800x494px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 800x494px

>the universe is bigger than your mom

>>8225983
It just doesn't have a very rigorous logical foundation, IMO. It all seems pretty hand-wavey to be a universal, insurmountable property of nature. I'm not denying that on average entropy is increasing throughout the universe, but I'm willing to bet there's some way to reverse it.

>>8225954
>>the Carnot cycle represents the absolute efficiency limit for any thermodynamic process
I agree with this one. Some guy made a shitty engine and everyone's all "we'll NEVER improve on this!"

1. There ought to be exactly 13-dimensions, not 11
2. There are actually 7 flavours: strange, charm, top, bottom, left, right and sugar.
3. Maths needs another basic operation. Addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, AND the power of imagination
4. I don't like the number 5, both the symbol and the number itself.
5. They tell you the universe is made of string what up with that.
6. An object will NOT continue in uniform motion if unimpeded. I tried with several balls, wheels, dishes and eventually they always stop.
7. Gravity is just weight. What's the mystery.
8. Atoms don't exist. They're as real as pixels. They use machines that detect atoms: but the machines themselves have to use "atoms", so they just detect what they already are: pixels. Pixels are the syntax of machine technology, so atoms will always "exist", though they don't. That is what Heisenberg meant with the cat, etc.
9. Physics most powerful tool is always will be suspension of disbelief. Either that or aesthesis a la european

>>8225990
How can you make an argument against the logical foundation of thermodynamics if you admit you have no idea what you're talking about?

>>8226103
Not thermodynamics, just that entropy is necessarily a fundamental law of the universe.

>>8226103
>>8226192
And this is a hunches without proof thread.

>>8225990
There isnt a logical way to argue that net entropy in the universe reverses. Even if you clean your room, you still turned a sandwhich into a steamer to get the locomotive energy to do so.

>Time goes faster the faster you move

>>8226200
Except that's just another "entropy is just kind of this thing that happens" argument. Where is the fundamental theory of entropy?

>>8226209
There is no theory i'm aware of that says that entropy MUST increase, just that it is statistically far more likely to happen and so it always DOES

>>8226215
That's my point and that's why I think it's (probably) bullshit to consider increasing entropy a fundamental law of the universe.

>>8226219
Well fair enough. Does anyone actually consider it a fundamental law of the universe?

>>8226200

A good way of putting it.

Additionally, who's to say that cleaning your room makes it more without the same faculties as a human bean might just see an arbitrary arrangement of cloths and items. I would say, if anything, that the more entropy increases the more orderly it becomes.

>>8226225
Quite a few people, apparently.

>>8226228
Unless they are misinterpreting your statement in the same way I did

>>8226219
It doesnt HAVE to increase. Soap works by reversing entropy by creating micelles when introduced in the water. But the production of the soap itself introduced a greater entropic state into the system producing it than the micelles reduced in their environment.

>>8226232
No, I mean it's pretty standard stuff taught in a lot of thermodynamics and physics curricula. It was in mine.

>>8226226
I dont know if i agree. From a view of energy, a dirty room and a clean room have the equal energy, the dirty room might have more. But a dirty room has less information than a clean room, because the clean room is organized in specific ways, while the dirty room has more random configurations. Like how an ice cube has more information than a glass of water, since the water molecules are randomly dispursed and randomly organized.

But i like the way you think

File: f13_05.jpg (126KB, 500x489px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 500x489px

>>8226225
It's a byproduct of the second law of thermodynamics. Our physics, engineering, and computing work off of that being true. It's generally better to assume that an ice cube won't form out of water molecules in the air, so we induce that state by spending energy to lower the temperature of water, and by spending that energy on the ice maker, some energy must also be lost to the environment.

You're "not talking about thermodynamics," so do tell what exactly you're referring to when you say "entropy."

>>8226239
Are you sure? There is a difference between saying confidently that entropy always WILL increase and saying that its a necessary physical law that it MUST.

I can confidently say that the entire earth will not spontaneously turn into gold in the next 5 seconds, but there is no physical law that says it cant

>itt people who don't understand how statistics work
>people who slept through the lecture explaining entropy

I think that entropy isn't a measure of the disorder of a system, but a measure of our lack of knowledge as to its configuration.

>>8226260
it's the total energy of a system unavailable to do work desu

>>8226200
>turned a sandwhich into a steamer
more

>>8226253
So how about you show us that fundamental theory of entropy? Like, you know, the entropy particle. Or the entropic interaction. Or maybe the entropy field.

Oh right, it "just sorta happens." :^)

universeis not closed cycle, energy is more and more, just dif forms.... pikohertz, exahertz...still more noisy.

>>8226518
>universeis not closed cycle
Your evidence for this?

>>8226521
ihave lawrinz as family, i can concord sr71 spaceflight, i landed spaceship. youare slave to moneytary stupidnes... give me computer to ui can give you equatorials.... even one fusion reactor can lock gravity but itn releases less ions

File: 158.png (11KB, 447x378px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 447x378px

>>8226536

>>8225954
>light is a particle
>true randomness

>>8226206
Don't we have evidence for this, though? I thought GPS satellites have to take time dilation into account as they orbit in order to remain accurate.

>>8226508

Entropy is proportional to the amount of states a system can access.

Statistically a system where more states are available will emerge.

Sure, at an infinite time scale there will be moments where entropy decreases by a large factor but those will be very rare.

Its like a coin toss. The probability is 1/2 but there are series of very large numbers where the coin is always heads up

>>8225954
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

Not implausible. A law is only a law until it is no longer a law. I guarantee there are exceptions or ways to bypass behaviors we are fundamental to our universe we can't even fathom yet, because we haven't gotten that far. We don't even really know what to make of the 'edge' of the universe. It expands, but where is it expanding?

Not to mention, entropy increase. Although statistical mechanics suggests that over time, any system will perform the wrong steps that cause it to lose entropy, but there are instances where, if the particles within that system interact in a particular way, entropy increases. Who is to say we will not be able to harness that?

>>8226103
Isn't that the purpose of this thread?

>That one thread on /v/ where someone said scientists were all evil liberals because they believed in Entropy