Entropy Et Al...

Entropy Et Al...

I read some "science" concerning "Creation" without causality by some amateur "scientists" which ideas I really believe they ought to submit to the Museum of Creation because they are about as scientific as Jerry Fallwell's idea of Creationism and just as faux, and would like to ask them to submit their credentials for teaching Anthropology and Thermodynamics, Quantum Theory, evolution and archeology, to someplace other than Fallwell's institutions or The Encyclopedia of Science for Kids, or The Donald Duck School of Cartooning. They define "entropy" as if it were a singular idea for explanation of a singular item. I beg to differ, as; in science, the term "entropy" is in general interpreted in at least three isolated, but somewhat related, ways: A) From a macroscopic viewpoint (classical thermodynamics), B) A microscopic viewpoint (statistical thermodynamics). C) An information viewpoint (information theory). Entropy in information theory is fundamentally different conceptual genre, from thermodynamic entropy. However, underlying, perhaps in a philosophical level, there is argument that thermodynamic entropy might be interpreted as at least one application of "information entropy" to a particular set of physical questions. There is a statistical definition of entropy, which is the fundamental definition from which the other two may be derived mathematically but not but one cannot reverse the process/theory. All of the observable properties of entropy (which gentlemen, bytheway, includes second law of thermodynamics) follow this definition. Macroscopic point of conception Classical Thermodynamics Conjugate variables of thermodynamics: Pressure, Volume (Stress & Strain) Temperature Entropy, Chemical potential Particle no. Classical Thermodynamics-Folks In a thermodynamic system, a Macroscopic entity which is made up of a systemic ambiance and of quantities of matter, has pressure differences, density differences, and temperature differences which all tend to equalize over time - it does so because the equilibrium state has greater probability (more conceivable combos of microstates) than any other. An example is ice melting, the difference in temperature between a warm surroundings and the introduction of an frosty-cold glass of ice water taken from a freezer system, begins to be neutralized or "equalized" as the heat energy from the warm surroundings become spread out to the cooler heretofore closed system of ice and water. A Thermodynamic System Eventually the frosty-cold glass of ice water taken from a freezer-system, and the temperature of the room become equal. The entropy of the room has diminished as a portion of its energy has been dispersed (shared, lost) to the frosty-cold glass of ice water taken from a freezer-system. However, the entropy of the system of frosty-cold glass of ice water taken from a freezer-system, has increased more than the entropy of the surrounding room has decreased. In an isolated system such as the "surroundings described above (perhaps a room) and frosty-cold glass of ice water taken from a freezer-system taken together, the dispersal of energy from warmer to cooler always results in a net increase in entropy. Thus, if the of surroundings-the room are described as a sort of "universe" of sorts) and frosty-cold glass of ice water taken from a freezer-system have reached a temperature equilibrium, then the entropy change from the initial state is at a maximum. The entropy of the thermodynamic system is the measurement of how far this "equalization" has progressed. There is a special case of entropy increase, and that is the entropy of mixing, occurs when at least two unlike substances are mixed. If these substances are subject to, or as properties thereof, are the same temperature and pressure, there will not be a net exchange of heat or work any entropy increase will be due entirely to the mixing of the unlike substances. In a macroscopic view, (classical thermodynamics) entropy is interpreted as a state function of a thermodynamic system: or, a property depending solely on the current states of that system, and is not dependent of how that state came about. The important property that of "state function," if one when multiplies it by a reference temperature, one can understand it as a measure of the measurement of energy in a physical system which can't be used to do thermodynamic work; (that is any work mediated by thermal energy).

To focus more concisely, in a process where the system gives up it's energy ΔE, where its entropy falls by ΔS, a quantity at least TR ΔS of that energy must be given up to this system's surroundings as unusable heat (TR is the temperature of the system's external surroundings). Without these conditions the process will not proceed. Clausius' called the "theorem respecting the equivalence-values of the transformations" ie; the second law of thermodynamics, hence, gentlemen/ladies, kids: An algebraic sum of all the transformations occurring in a cyclical process can only be positive, or, as an extreme case, equal to nothing. Quantitatively, Clausius says; the mathematical expression for this theorem is: Let δQ be an element of the heat given up by the body to any reservoir of heat during its own changes, heat which it may absorb from a reservoir being here reckoned as negative, and T the absolute temperature of the body at the moment of giving up this heat, then the equation: \int \frac{\delta Q}{T} = 0 must be true for every reversible cyclical process, and the relation: \int \frac{\delta Q}{T} \le 0 must hold good for every cyclical process, which is in any way possible. The above is the essential formulation of the second law and one of the original forms of the concept of entropy. You can see, if not blocked by blockheaded emotional machismo that the dimensions of entropy are energy divided by temperature, which is the same as the dimensions of Boltzmann's constant (kB) and heat capacity. The SI unit of entropy is "joule per kelvin" (J" K-1). In this manner, the quantity "ΔS" is utilized as a type of internal energy, which accounts for the effects of irreversibility, in the energy balance equation for any given system. In the Gibbs free energy equation, i.e. ΔG = ΔH - TΔS, is a formula usually the determinent of/if chemical reactions will occur, the energy related to entropy changes TΔS is subtracted from the "complete" systems energy ΔH to give the "free" energy ΔG of the system, as during a chemical process or as when a system changes state. Now to the Microscopic definition of entropy, which is also known as statistical mechanics? In statistical thermodynamics entropy is defined as the number of microscopic configurations that result in a macroscopic description of the thermodynamic system: S = k_B \ln \Omega \! Where kB is Boltzmann's constant 1.38066Ã--10-23 J K-1 and \Omega \! Is the number of microstates corresponding to the observed thermodynamic macrostate calculated using the multiplicity function. This definition is the fundamental definition of entropy (as all other definitions can be mathematically derived from it, but not the opposite). Boltzmann's Lectures on Gas Theory showed that that expression gave a measure of entropy for systems (of atoms and molecules in the gas phase), thus providing a measure for the entropy of classical thermodynamics. Thermodynamicist Ludwig Boltzmann had visualized a probabilistic means of measurement of the entropy of a collection of ideal gas particles, in which he defined entropy, to be proportional to the logarithm of the number of microstates, which a gas could occupy. Since then the essential problem in statistical thermodynamics, according to Erwin Schrödinger, (You know the "Cat") has been to determine the distribution of a given amount of energy E over N identical systems. Statistical mechanics defines entropy as the amount of uncertainty (or "mixedability"), which remains, about a system, after its viewable macroscopic properties have been considered. For a given set of macroscopic quantities, like temperature and volume, the entropy measures the degree to which the probability of the system is spread out over different possible quantum states. The more states there are available to the system with higher probability, and thus the greater the entropy. In simple terms, folks, the widest ranging interpretation of entropy is a measure of your ignorance about a given system. The equilibrium state of a system maximizes entropy because you will have lost all information about the initial conditions except for those conserved quantities; therefore maximizing entropy maximizes your ignorance about the details of the system. If you view and consider, folks, a molecular scale, both definitions become duplicative, generally, and that, fellows, is because adding heat to a system, which increases its classical thermodynamic entropy, also increases the system's thermal variations-thus giving an increased lack of information about the exact microscopic state of the system, that is; an increased statistical mechanical entropy. I could go on about Entropy in Chemical Thermodynamics, or the Second Law of Thermodynamics endlessly, but... An important law of physics, The Second Law of Thermodynamics, states that the total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time... blah, blah, blah..., or Entropy balance equation for open systems like chemical engineering, or von Neumann entropy, in quantum statistical mechanics, in which he established the correct mathematical framework for quantum mechanics with his work Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik and provided in this work a theory of measurement, where the usual notion of wave collapse is described as an irreversible process (the so called von Neumann or projective measurement). Using this concept, in conjunction with the density matrix, he extended the classical concept of entropy into the quantum domain, but I would rather focus on the obsession with Standard textbook definitions of some folks, even if, and this is true, textbook definitions are seldom the most helpful definitions, but they do contain an important aspect of the culture surrounding the concept of entropy, such as Entropy as energy broken down in irretrievable heat. However, that would mean a couple of dozen pages of stuff that would have to be tutored or further edited for the layman audience. Perhaps some professor of that discipline, which I am not, in your own neighborhood community college can do a more concise explanation but I had a long day and am too tired right now, so Good night and God Bless and have fun with the above, it took the better part of 45 minutes to pull together from memory without my physics textbook with some help from other sources. Oh, Heck before I Do Go Lets Talk: Entropy And Cosmology (Black Holes, Folks) I am certain we all know that a finite universe can be considered a system, which is isolated? Therefore, it could be subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, so that its entire entropy is consistently increasing. In my days of studying physics it was thought that the universe would be devastated by Heat-Death, thus my comment about "heat loss" to which some folks frenetically reacted. Where all the systemic energy became a conglomerate distribution of thermal energy, in which no more work could be extracted from any source. If the universe is viewed as to having generally increasing entropy, then gravity plays a unique part in such increase because gravity causes dispersed matter to bunch into stars, which collapse into black holes in time. I believe folks that it was/is Bekenstein and Hawking which showed that black holes have maximum possible entropy of any object of equal size. They are thus probable end points of all entropy-increasing processes, if they are truly "maximally," matter/energy traps. But wait, Dr. Hawking has changed his stance on this subject, guys, now he says (In the very changing process of solid science one day and mythology the next), that the part plays in entropy in cosmology remains a volatile subject. (Gee, you mean it ain't carved in rock, any more, but purely subjective speculation, much like theology is with those few open minded Anthropologist/theologians, like me and the discipline I created now known as Theoretical Theology?????) Jeepers, guys, what next? Well, now it would seem that the heat death hypothesis and the applicability of any simple thermodynamic model to the universe in general is in grave DOUBT. Yes, even though entropy does increase in the model of an expanding universe, the maximum possible entropy rises much more rapidly and leads to what Hawking now calls an "entropy gap," thus pushing the system further away from equilibrium as time passes. There are a host of other complicated and complicating factors, like as the energy density of the vacuum and macroscopic quantum effects, are difficult to reconcile with "thermo-dynamical models," making any predictions of large-scale thermodynamics extremely difficult? I have a larger question for you-all and Hawking, who I greatly respect:

And in error, or otherwise, this is copyrighted by me so do not bandy it about until my book is completed and published, puleeze: To contain even light (traveling at 186,000 PS) a Black Hole's (BH) gravitational strength must exceed the speed of light's speed strength. To accomplish that it must have a total gravitational power that exceeds also the entropic distribution or deterioration of the universe around it, or become a universe unto itself (or is it already one?) So, then, is the BH after its Cheney/Bush act of consuming everything in it's path, The Universe, containing all that not exists, crushed down into a universe eating point? If so, what of the Tachyon, which exceeds light speed at all times and is theoretically capable of time-space travel backward forward and conceivably sideways, thus exceeding our "Flatland" four dimensional human capable-visual model? The Tachyon by so exceeding Light Speed, by what factor I do not know, easily breaks free of the BH and in so doing may yet return in it's to, fro, sideways meandering and thereby blast the bejeepers out of the BH, Big-Banging it into a new Universe, and guess what, therefore it resembles in my calculations, (equations) with which I shall not bore you until the book is FINI) the ANCIENT Hindu model of the expanding/contracting universe on it's never-ending cycle. I have some questions about the veracity of my above "theory" so, and do this only if you are a physicist, or astrophysicist, or Professor of Theoretical Astro Physics at a major University, please let me know.

THAT'S ALL I CAN DO TONIGHT FOLKS HAVE A GOOD SUNDAY or if you are not religious have a good Sundae, at a local ice cream joint. GOOD NIGHT AND GOD BLESS Pete