“If we grant your hypothetical -- if everything were to stop in its tracks, then no possible experiment could detect this. That means that your speculation is not scientific and is not appropriate for this forum”
I see jbriggs444 has abandoned any further attempt at an intelligent response. If entropy just stopped, would it have the same effect as if time stopped (or causality if you like) is a perfectly valid question. If you’d put as much energy into answering the question as you do into ranting, then maybe we could get somewhere.
…………………………………………………..
And as far a Studiot is concerned, here is his so called analytical response:
“OK that's fine now we understand what you mean by a rate we can find your source of difficulty. By 'rate of entropy' you actually mean the quantity itself, since entropy is defined as energy per degree.”
NO, how can a quantity be a rate? hehe. A rate refers to something that changes, i.e., Entropy increases as matter and energy degrade to an ultimate state of uniformity. Duh…
The universe has to have some rate of entropy, and how can it not have a half-life if its energy is running down? So to translate this sentence you mean 'The universe has to have some particular value of entropy, and how can it not have a half-life if its energy is running down?' “As far as I know there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the energy of the universe is running down.”
If you don’t think that entropy meant the energy of the universe is running down, then back to Physics 101. A battery has the same amount of energy after it runs down, but it’s no longer available, The available energy is what running down. Does that really need to be spelled out here?
“Thermodynamically the universe is either an infinite or a isolated system, either way it is not suffering diminution of its energy.”
We are talking about entropy, or do you have a problem with short term memory? When talking about entropy we are discussing available energy, of course. That’s what is running down.
However much you remove from infinity still leaves you with infinity. If, on the other hand the universe is finite it is an isolated system since it incorporates all there is. The First Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the energy of an isolated system is constant.”
But, may not all be useful. The subject here is entropy! Please read the first post.
“You would do well to understand them before trying to preach to the technical community, up to and including professors of physics.”
No professors have been replying to me; that’s for sure. Professors are professional, polite, and never arrogant, and would never give an answer to a lengthy question with just a “No.”
“Further and more telling: it refers to energy that is not available, rather than energy that is available.”
That’s about as important as me pointing out you spelled system "sytem" above. No professor would ever nitpick over that just to try to make the person asking the questing look bad. Pretending that matters is a logical fallacy, and not appreciated on this forum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you remember tomorrow or change yesterday? Obviously time has direction.
"This is the "stage" that entropy plays out on." You can't just claim things; you must support your claim with some clear reasoning. How can you know that?
If anything is not isotropic it would be entropy, not time. And, that fact may be the only thing that would distinguish entropy from time.
“I'd suggest learning about SR and how it defines time/length.
You may see too, that to suggest time having a direction that is causally connected to entropy laughable.”
Oh really, here are mentioned two books on the subject:
“While I don’t plan on giving a complete rundown of every sentence in my new Symmetry book every now and again, I figured I’d run some ideas by you and see if you have any follow-up questions. At the moment, I’m working on Chapter 2, with the working title, “Does Entropy Increase with Time or does it Make Time?”
Apropos of this, I’ve spent the weekend reading fellow Pennsbury High School alum and Dutton author Sean Carroll’s book, “From Eternity to Here,” who addresses this very question is a fair amount of detail. It’s a very well-reasoned book and has a very good tone,”
“Remove time from you musings over entropy, 'cause you misunderstand the term. Yesterday/tomorrow has everything to do with causation and little to nothing to do with time.”
Man have you missed the point. You better go back and read the original message. Newton’s laws of motion can describe causality in time moving both forwards or backwards. Causality doesn’t care what direction time goes in, only the second law of thermodynamics requires an arrow of time. That’s the whole point to all of this, what causes what? Entropy says a glass can shatter, but not reform itself. CAUSALITY can only go in one direction. So, it is entropy that gives time its direction. Time is emergent from entropy.
“I know the definition of time/length precedes their use in observing entropy. that is so obvious logically...I'm leaving this discussion.”
If you can’t say anything more intelligent than what you have been saying so far, then that’s for the best.
“Of course all that said, let's ignore semantics. Sure "flow of time" is synonymous with "increase in entropy". The quotes are the qualifiers...which are required since there is no flow to time. There is a flow to causation, what more do you expect?”
Causation can flow in either direction. Why can’t you get the point? ONLY the second law requires an arrow of time. Causality only goes in one directly, and that direction is determined by one and only one thing – entropy.
The following is taken from the book by William Sidis, who had the highest I.Q. ever recorded -- 300. So, don’t you be telling me I don’t know what I’m talking about:
“… if we take the most ordinary events of the real universe and attempt to find out what is the corresponding events in the reverse universe, something strange will at once impress us about the reverse universe. Take this, for example: a ball rolls down a staircase, bounces a little at the bottom, and finally stops. In the reverse universe the initial condition is the ball at the bottom, on a floor near, the foot of a staircase. The heat energy in the floor collects at one point underneath the ball, so as to push the ball suddenly upward. Each time that the ball falls back to the floor this process is repeated, until finally the floor throws the ball on to the first stair. The stairs, each in turn, throw the ball in a similar manner up the staircase, till finally the ball stops at the top. The molecular vibrations in the ball, floor, and staircase, had previously been so arranged that concentration of energy would happen at a particular spot and time, while the ball so moved that it just happened to be at those spots exactly in time.
So it will be with the occurrences corresponding in the reverse universe to almost any common occurrence in the physical world of our experience. Everything seems to be perfectly explicable in terms of physical laws, but at the same time the combinations of motions seem to have something utterly strange about them. Hence there is some point of difference between the real universe and the reverse universe, and hence there must be some property of the real universe that is irreversible.
This irreversible property is found in what is called the second law of thermodynamics. This, taken in its most general aspect, amounts to this: that the energy of the universe is constantly running down to one common level.”
If you would all stop whining and ranting and just answer the questions I ask, it would same everyone a lot of time, and serve your readers better. The problem is that none of you are professors of Physics. Any professor would know the question of does time emerge from entropy is a perfectly valid one.
What does that mean?
