Thought experiment proposed to reconcile psychological versus thermodynamic arrows of time

May 05, 2014 by Bob Yirka report
A reversible system with a well-defined arrow of time and a memory. Credit: Leonard Mlodinow and Todd A. Brun, Phys. Rev. E 89, 052102 (2014)

(Phys.org) —A pair of physicists has proposed a thought experiment to help reconcile the seeming disparity between the psychological and thermodynamic arrows of time. In their paper published in the journal Physical Review E, Leonard Mlodinow and Todd Brun claim their thought experiment demonstrates that the two seemingly contradictory views of time, must always align.

When ordinary people think about , they see the past as something that has come before and the future as a great unknown yet to come. We can remember the past, because it has happened already, but not the future, because it hasn't. Physicists, on the other hand see time as able to move either forward or backwards (towards greater entropy), which implies that we should be able to remember events in the future. So, why can't we?

It's because of the way our memories work the two say, and they've created a to demonstrate what they mean. Imagine, they write, two chambers connected by an atomic sized tube with a turnstile in it. If there is gas in one of the chambers, individual atoms of it will move through the tube to the other chamber (towards higher entropy) tripping the turnstile as they go, in effect, counting the atoms as they pass by, until both sides have equal numbers of atoms—creating a state of equilibrium.

The authors contend that such a system represents a memory—the counter on the turnstile can be used to demonstrate prior states of the system. But, they say, it can also be used to view memories of the future, but only in one special case—where nothing causes a change to the system. If at any point, they note, something causes any of the atoms (from the future) to deviate from reversing the exact course they took to return from where they came from, preventing the restoration of the original configuration, then the system will be move from higher entropy to lower. That would suggest that such a memory system, like our own, can only be used as a one way arrow representing time. And that, the authors note, violates the very definition of a memory. The reason we can't remember events is because we have faulty memories.

Explore further: Maxwell's demon can use quantum information to generate work

More information: Relation between the psychological and thermodynamic arrows of time, Leonard Mlodinow and Todd A. Brun, Phys. Rev. E 89, 052102 (2014) Published May 2, 2014 dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.89.052102

ABSTRACT
In this paper we lay out an argument that generically the psychological arrow of time should align with the thermodynamic arrow of time where that arrow is well defined. This argument applies to any physical system that can act as a memory, in the sense of preserving a record of the state of some other system. This result follows from two principles: the robustness of the thermodynamic arrow of time to small perturbations in the state, and the principle that a memory should not have to be fine-tuned to match the state of the system being recorded. This argument applies even if the memory system itself is completely reversible and nondissipative. We make the argument with a paradigmatic system, and then formulate it more broadly for any system that can be considered a memory. We illustrate these principles for a few other example systems and compare our criteria to earlier treatments of this problem.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Using memories to motivate behavior

Apr 30, 2014

We all know that thinking about exercise isn't the same as doing it. But researchers from the University of New Hampshire have confirmed what may be the next best thing: just thinking about a past exercise experience can ...

Making sense of memory

Aug 17, 2012

It happens to all of us: We think we learned of the Sept. 11 attacks from a radio report, when, in fact, the news came from a co-worker; we’re sure the robber running from the bank was tall, when actually ...

Outside the body our memories fail us

Mar 10, 2014

New research from Karolinska Institutet and Umeå University demonstrates for the first time that there is a close relationship between body perception and the ability to remember. For us to be able to store ...

Recommended for you

How did evolution optimize circadian clocks?

Sep 12, 2014

(Phys.org) —From cyanobacteria to humans, many terrestrial species have acquired circadian rhythms that adapt to sunlight in order to increase survival rates. Studies have shown that the circadian clocks ...

High Flux Isotope Reactor named Nuclear Historic Landmark

Sep 12, 2014

The High Flux Isotope Reactor, or HFIR, now in its 48th year of providing neutrons for research and isotope production at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, has been designated a Nuclear ...

User comments : 56

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (9) May 05, 2014
This is one of those articles which is only philobait isn't it? Geez I hope noumenon doesn't find it.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (6) May 05, 2014
This is one of those articles which is only philobait isn't it? Geez I hope noumenon doesn't find it.


Well I would like to see a cage match to the death with the nounemon-Skippy and the Really-Skippy.
hemitite
1 / 5 (4) May 05, 2014
What if we can sometimes remember the future? That might account for some of the "psychic" experences that (if we are honest) we all have frome time to time.
Pejico
May 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MrVibrating
4.3 / 5 (3) May 05, 2014
What if we can sometimes remember the future? That might account for some of the "psychic" experences that (if we are honest) we all have frome time to time.

I'm gifted with an ability to predict TV schedules with greater than average success, but i think that's more to do with the fact that most shows are repeated ad nauseum these days than any retro-causal Maxwellian demons in my head (the amount i drink, they'd be long dead from liver disease)..

julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (4) May 05, 2014
Leave aside that the world of all that is is far larger than just a simple gas chamber experiment and the human goes beyond. This demonstrates a number of faults in how "science" deals with the universe.
Among other things, it is not necessarily "the direction of time" that keeps gas molecules from retracing their steps all back into the one chamber. Molecules can move from the full to the empty chamber because there is no impediment. Trying to move the other way, they can and will be obstructed by other molecules. But, more than that, molecules simply moving back into the first chamber, even all of them, if they manage it, is not time moving backward! In order for time to move backward, every particle will have to move through exactly the same moves, at exactly the same speeds simultaneously. And that may indicate an unrecognized law of nature, that some facet of forces, energies makes it impossible for all action to run backward.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (4) May 05, 2014
What if we can sometimes remember the future? That might account for some of the "psychic" experences that (if we are honest) we all have frome time to time.
I think the proper term for this is temporal dyslexia.
RobertKarlStonjek
2.3 / 5 (3) May 05, 2014
The flaws in this observation are legion.

Firstly, in a closed system, given sufficient time, every configuration of the gas, including the original, will occur and recur (in infinite time, infinite occurrence of every configuration).

The probability of all the gas being in one side of the container is extremely low, but it is in that configuration that we can observe it at least once, at the beginning of the experiment. The mechanism for creating the disequilibrium is ignored in the experiment *but can not be ignored in reality*.

Entropy in a closed system does not tend toward the highest entropy but the highest *average* entropy. This is because the particles are moving about and so entropy is constantly fluctuating.

The average falls as the interval of observation increases because configurations of ever lower entropy, such as the initial condition, occur.

Such basic mistakes ~ their philosophy is below grade school, their science little better.
RobertKarlStonjek
2 / 5 (4) May 05, 2014
In a totally isolated system there is no arrow of time.

As mentioned above, the average entropy, given infinite time, ALWAYS REMAINS THE SAME and the instantaneous entropy is ALWAYS CHANGING.

Only when the system is open does the arrow of time point in a direction. In an open system, even one of a simple gas, there are configurations that can not recur in an open system.

In the simplest possible case, a single particle of the gas is ejected from the body of gas and continues to move away into empty space forever. Thus the arrow of time is established.

This is the reality for the universe in which we live. Memory maps, in the simplest system, configurations that can not recur.

Switch on a light, any light, and chances are that at least one photon will escape into space.

The flaw in the 2nd law as often presented is to start with an extremely low entropy and then consider an interval so short that the probability of the original configuration recurring is negligible.
RobertKarlStonjek
2 / 5 (4) May 05, 2014
If the probability of a particular configuration such as the initial condition is such that we only expect it to occur once in a billion years, such as in the above system, and we observe for ten minutes, what will we observe about entropy?

If a clock pendulum takes two seconds to fall to its lowest point and then rise again to maximum height, what observation will we make if we always start with the pendulum in its highest position and never observe it for more than 1/10th of a second?

We conclude that pendulums always fall.

Now I choose the highest possible entropy instead of the lowest possible entropy for the gas as my initial condition in the above experiment. What can I say ALWAYS happens?

From the highest possible entropy, **Entropy MUST ALWAYS FALL** because the gas is dynamic and therefore the entropy state MUST change.

Just how long has thermodynamics being fooling itself with rigged experiments? Rigged the other way we come to the opposite conclusion.
Uncle Ira
1 / 5 (7) May 05, 2014
Oh boy, we got another book writing-Skippy here. Is this going to be a long book? Or something we can finish with in just one day?

Hooeei, I just peek at your profile page, nothing personal to you, but you are one ugly homme.
RobertKarlStonjek
3 / 5 (4) May 05, 2014
So the major flaw in my reasoning, according to you, is that " you are one ugly homme."

Good to know that you could find no flaw in my logic or science and had to revert to ad hominem attack.

In fact I have had two low scores and no flaws mentioned ~ obviously coming from faith based objections..
Uncle Ira
1 / 5 (6) May 05, 2014
So the major flaw in my reasoning, according to you, is that " you are one ugly homme."


Non Cher, the major flawness according to me is you wrote more than the article about the article. The ugly homme was extra. I suppose that the ugly you got from being borned, I can't see how a person could get that ugly without taking most of a lifetime to do it. Why you put the picture up anyway you?

Good to know that you could find no flaw in my logic or science and had to revert to ad hominem attack.


I did not make no anti-gay slurs or attacks with you. That is the lie and you know it Skippy.

In fact I have had two low scores and no flaws mentioned ~ obviously coming from faith based objections..


Damn Skippy, you don't read too good do you? I mentioned your flaws for you. One, the main one, you was writing a book thing for to tell about a short article thing. Two, the other not main thing is you got the picture of one ugly homme on your profile page.
axemaster
5 / 5 (4) May 06, 2014
This paper does not represent new work - I have heard the same ideas expressed in detail since many years ago.

It's actually been bugging me lately - why are we seeing so many regurgitations of preexisting knowledge coming out lately? Just a few days ago, it was claims of a new "plasma energy shield", which just like this was already a well known and explored concept. Are bogus claims of novelty in vogue or something?
AmritSorli
not rated yet May 06, 2014
what a nonsense, it is difficult to believe this is published in a peer review journal. Time is only a mathematical parameter of atoms motion and arrows of time are pure mind constructions.

AmritSorli
1 / 5 (2) May 06, 2014
Liquid1474
4 / 5 (4) May 06, 2014
Oh boy, we got another book writing-Skippy here. Is this going to be a long book? Or something we can finish with in just one day?

Hooeei, I just peek at your profile page, nothing personal to you, but you are one ugly homme.


YOU care about THAT troll?

Damn, you lame, holmes
Writela
5 / 5 (1) May 06, 2014
The reason we can't remember future events is because we have faulty memories
Nope, but we can predict the future with it. That is to say, we can extrapolate the past event with using of our memory into future. After all, whole the science serves for breaking of thermodynamic time arrow: the knowledge collected with physicists enables us to predict the steadily increasing portion of future.

As I told already, the thermodynamical time arrow applies only to dimensional scale bellow dimensional scale of human observers. The larger phenomena are governed with gravity which has exactly the opposite effects: it leads to collapse and condensation instead of evaporation of massive objects. Which is the reason, why for example the Saturn rings appear thin and flat for millions of years: they're scrambled with thermodynamics, but continuously repaired with gravity. At the distance scale of ice particles (few milimeters) the quantum and relativity effects are balanced.
Writela
5 / 5 (1) May 06, 2014
There are two ways how to solve this paradox: we can consider the thermodynamics as a matter of quantum scale only. In this model the entropy and information content of Universe remains roughly constant: if some information gets scrambled with thermodynamics, it will get repaired somewhere else (like at the case of Saturn rings). Or we can consider more general geometry, in which the the objects larger than the human observer are observed from inside instead of outside. In such a geometry the condensation effects of gravity at large scale can be interpreted like the entropic effects of thermodynamics at smaller scale and the entropy of Universe will increase steadily. At any case, without consideration of gravity effects or hyperdimensional geometry all entropic extrapolations of Universe past or black hole future cannot work, because they depend on scale of observation.
RobertKarlStonjek
1 / 5 (3) May 06, 2014
The idea that gravity reverses entropy has been considered by science and there are some supporters but the general view is that entropy always rises, almost as if this is some kind of religious calling.

Even black holes, which you'd think were in a low entropy condition, have been modelled as being in a high entropy condition.

My personal model starts with a small fish-tank sized container and a gas, hydrogen, compressed in one corner as the initial condition.

Release the gas after a short interval it reaches the maximum *average* entropy. Nothing much changes from there.

Now keep the density the same but make the container a little bigger, say 10 light years for each side. This is not big in a universe that currently has a radius of at least 90 billion light years!!

Let the initial condition be the gas confined to, say, 1:1000 of the entire volume. In the small tank entropy will rise but in the big one entropy will fall as the gas compresses further to create a star.
EnricM
not rated yet May 06, 2014
What if we can sometimes remember the future? That might account for some of the "psychic" experences that (if we are honest) we all have frome time to time.


To be completely honest, I never have had such "psychodelic" experiences.
My psyche is enough though to be able to predict the outcome of future events without having to call in the ghostbusters.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) May 06, 2014
This is one of those articles which is only philobait isn't it? Geez I hope noumenon doesn't find it.


I posted recently here on how an 'intuitive notion of time' is causing another posters to misunderstand physics. Do you disagree with my assignment, and if so how?


Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) May 06, 2014
In the small tank entropy will rise but in the big one entropy will fall as the gas compresses further to create a star.


The entropy decrease from the gas coalescing into a smaller volume (less position phase space) is always excessively compensated for by the increase in the heat generated and released by the compression (more momentum phase space). So gravity does not in anyway violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) May 06, 2014
Oh boy, we got another book writing-Skippy here. Is this going to be a long book? Or something we can finish with in just one day?

Hooeei, I just peek at your profile page, nothing personal to you, but you are one ugly homme.


You're a disgusting low class and adolescent troll. Why not add your photo to your profile page?
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) May 06, 2014
[EDIT:] I posted recently here on how an 'intuitive notion of time' is causing another [poster] to misunderstand physics. Do you disagree with my [assessment], and if so how?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) May 06, 2014
Non Cher, the major flawness according to me is you wrote more than the article about the article. The ugly homme was extra. I suppose that the ugly you got from being borned
I don't suppose we can expect reasoned discourse from someone who posts a pic of himself and doesn't notice that his glasses are extremely crooked.

It doesn't appear that his head is misshapen although one ear could be lower (but that much?) or an ear could be missing. But I think it is probably a certain gross level of disregard for the world around him which causes this gentleman to post such a bizarre selfie.

No I don't read posts by flooders. Sorry.
I posted recently here on how an 'intuitive notion of time' is causing another posters to misunderstand physics
'misunderstand physics'... So i suppose you read his post full of words and and answered him with yet more words? Words are inadequate to understand physics or to communicate it. Anyone who understands it will tell you this. Will you listen?
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) May 06, 2014
I posted recently here on how an 'intuitive notion of time' is causing another posters to misunderstand physics


'misunderstand physics'... So i suppose you read his post full of words and and answered him with yet more words? Words are inadequate to understand physics or to communicate it. Anyone who understands it will tell you this. Will you listen?


Of course that is patently false, but in any case, vacuous words are all YOU ever post at this physics site, where I have in fact posted math. If you would have read the thread in question you would have known this, but you're not interested in physics as such, but only in being anti-x's, which is by definition is less than nothing.

Why suppose? Read the thread, and tell me in detail where you disagree with me wrt time. Is not that the scientific method, to use facts, and not to 'suppose'?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) May 06, 2014
I posted recently here on how an 'intuitive notion of blahhh
Oy I see you did. You having the last word in a thread does not signify victory nou.
The word "rate" implies quantifiability. If your above statement is true, then there would exist some independent time-substance, time-field, time-force, or time-particle that is this "time". Where is it?
ONLY SCIENTISTS can ask these sorts of questions, using the PROPER words to represent the math that they and only they are thoroughly familiar with; and ONLY SCIENTISTS can answer those questions in the same manner.

Pretending to know what you don't fails on 2 fronts: it gives others the impression that your WORDS somehow convey meaning; and that real scientists use such words instead of math in the course of their work.

Scientists use words as shorthand for extremely complex knowledge sets. You imply by using them that the words are all there is.

The word for this is 'disingenuous'.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) May 06, 2014
Read the thread, and tell me in detail where you disagree with me
Well I disagree with you on this:
As you can see from above, philosophy is intertwined with physics necessarily in starting postulates and conceptual definitions
-which is a notion only you philos share. It's exactly the same thing as artists claiming that science is art.

How do I know? Because only scientists do science. Because several prominent scientists have expressed their annoyance and exasperation at philo intrusions, of which you are well aware.

And because you, as a philo, totally misconstrue the concept of 'observer' by equating it with the maunderings of a long-dead superphilo whose notion of 'observer' necessarily included a soul, and a god looking over his shoulder telling him what to see.

Obviously your references are dated and hopelessly tainted. And irrelevant.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) May 06, 2014
@TheGhostofOtto1923,

Then why does Phys.Org have a comment section to which you participate in, if it was not possible to discus physics using words? I have already pointed out to you that I have used math in the argument against johanfprins.

Pretending to know what you don't fails on 2 fronts:


What is it that you are claiming I don't know? Be specific here.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) May 06, 2014
I posted recently, [above link]] on how an 'intuitive notion of time' is causing another [poster] to misunderstand physics. Do you disagree with my [assessment], and if so how?


Oy I see you did. You having the last word in a thread does not signify victory nou.


So, you agree with johanfprins?

The word "rate" implies quantifiability. If your above statement is true, then there would exist some independent time-substance, time-field, time-force, or time-particle that is this "time". Where is it?

ONLY SCIENTISTS can ask these sorts of questions, using the PROPER words to represent the math that they and only they are thoroughly familiar with.


Is that a law, and do you know of my profession? Had you understood physics, yourself, and so had been in a position to respond that way about my post, you would have known that I was referring to an 'operational definition of time' which was a requirement of Einstein himself.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) May 06, 2014
And because you, as a philo, totally misconstrue the concept of 'observer' by equating it with the maunderings of a long-dead superphilo whose notion of 'observer' necessarily included a soul, and a god looking over his shoulder telling him what to see.


I have never stated any such thing. You're dishonestly is a cover for your failed understanding of what points I make and how they relate to physics.

Read the thread, and tell me in detail where you disagree with me wrt time. Is not that the scientific method, to use facts, and not to 'suppose'?

Well I disagree with you on this:

As you can see from above, philosophy is intertwined with physics necessarily in starting postulates and conceptual definitions


That's not what I asked you, (you dishonestly clipped the quote),.... I said in that thread "wrt to time".
Pejico
May 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RobertKarlStonjek
1 / 5 (1) May 06, 2014
Noumenon, thermodynamics in its original form considered heat concentrated into a small area as low entropy and distributed throughout the system as high entropy, the original model being heat engines.

If heat is concentrated into a small area in a star as opposed to even distribution then entropy must be lower by every definition of thermodynamics as originally formulated because the energy concentrated in one area can do work whereas when distributed it can not.

You are saying the opposite. That when a star forms, entropy rises even though the biggest, oldest and most effective heat engines known in the universe are stars and no work can be done by a uniform body of gas.

If I consider two cases, gas compressed but cold in a small volume in a tank and gas compressed but hot, then the hot gas has a much lower entropy. Note that the hot gas radiates energy, which lowers its entropy. In other words its entropy becomes higher in order to become like the cold compressed gas.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) May 06, 2014
I have never stated any such thing. You're dishonestly is a cover for your failed understanding of what points I make and how they relate to physics
You relate kant to physics, specifically qm, yes or no? Im sorry I fail to memorize your mantra. Something to do wrt (with) the nature of a thing being unknowable in its entirety, epistemically, a priorically, etc. Also the metaphysical cant be accessed but its still there. I suppose we grok it?

Just to help out, maybe you can tell me where in the critique of purile reason can these notions be found? Perhaps in the 'Amphiboly of Concepts of Reflection', or perhaps 'The Soul is a person' or maybe 'Physico-theological Proof of God's Existence'

-Oh I think we have discovered something:

'Yet God is a noumenon' -figures.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) May 06, 2014
If heat is concentrated into a small area in a star as opposed to even distribution then entropy must be lower by every definition of thermodynamics as originally formulated because the energy concentrated in one area can do work whereas when distributed it can not.


If only considering the positions states of the matter, then you would be correct, the entropy would decrease due to the matter coalescing on account of gravity. But as it happens, there will be radiation of energy on account of this, photons, which you will need to count also.

'That entropy always increases' is only a valid statement when considering a closed system, no energy in or out, so your hypothetical large tank star would need to contain (or reflect back) all the thermoenergy as well.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) May 06, 2014
Had you understood physics
Lawrence krauss, the guy who first postulated dark matter, explaining his outrage at the clueless philo david albert:

"Even more surprisingly, this author claimed with apparent authority (surprising because the author apparently has some background in physics) something that is simply wrong: that the laws of physics can never dynamically determine which particles and fields exist and whether space itself exists, or more generally what the nature of existence might be."

-which sounds an awful lot like what youre trying to sell here.
That's not what I asked you, (you dishonestly clipped the quote),.... I said in that thread "wrt to time"
-And thats not what I chose to answer is it? You ask a lot of unanswerable questions. Philos have had centuries to perfect their skills, in asking seemingly profound questions with great authority, which are in fact unanswerable because they are NONSENSE. They got this talent from their brethren the priests.
RobertKarlStonjek
1 / 5 (1) May 06, 2014
Noumenon, Entropy does not always increase in a closed system as I clearly outlined in my initial statements. Only if you choose a low entropy state does entropy rise in the short term. Given infinite time then the average entropy remains the same. Choosing a higher entropy state than the average entropy as an initial condition you will find that entropy always falls in the short term.

When we consider two volumes of gas, one compressed by gravity and one not, where doe the heat energy in the compressed gas come from, especially if we consider that when it cools it will have the same temperature as the uncompressed gas.

In the larger volume the gas becomes compressed and energy is concentrated, which is a low entropy condition. The energy comes from the motion of gas which is random before gravity acts and more ordered and uniform after.

The total equation, as with the gas in the box, is that, given sufficient time and account of all the parameters, entropy remains the same.
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (3) May 06, 2014
When we consider two volumes of gas, one compressed by gravity and one not, where doe the heat energy in the compressed gas come from, especially if we consider that when it cools it will have the same temperature as the uncompressed gas.


Hoooyeei, RobertKarlSkippy, ol Ira thanks you for posting up that one. It is not often I gets to show up one the smart peoples.

The heat energy don't come from no where, it was there all the time. When you run the compression on it, it just takes the energy what was there and squeezes it into a little space to make more concentrated.

And ol Ira knows another wrong you make, if the gas gets cool after it being compressed, it ain't a shut up system thing, if it was shut up system, the heats couldn't go out. Seems to ol Ira you is turning the entropy and shut up system on and off depending which part of the paragraph you are writing.
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (3) May 06, 2014
P.S. for you RobertKarlSkippy. If the system is shut up, there can't be no compressioning going on. Unless you talking about the gravity compressioning the gas. Then the gravity let's go some energy and passes it over to the compressioning gas. But if you got the outside piston compressioning, then your system ain't a shut system, it's getting something form the outside with the piston what is compressioning or whatever thing might be making the piston go.

I'm not really the scientist. I just sound like one because I use the google. That is a thing you should want to try before you try to teach the science stuffs here. Ol Ira showing you up is not something you want people to be hearing about no.
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (3) May 06, 2014
That's not what I asked you, .... I said in that thread "wrt to time"

-And thats not what I chose to answer is it? You ask a lot of unanswerable questions.


It's not unanswerable, it's purely mainstream physics. In the link above I correct two posters wrt time in physics and special relativity.

Now, wrt your first post, if you are only interested in drive-by accusations the type a troll would engage in, then indeed choose not to answer my question.

If you actually have a disagreement with me wrt physics only, and how I used Time in that thread, then make a post there.

You want to engage me in a discussion about the validity of philosophy, despite the impossibility of you even reading Kant, but do not want to discuss physics?
RobertKarlStonjek
1 / 5 (1) May 07, 2014
Ira,
whenever a particle changes direction in flat space-time it emits or absorbs a photon. That is energy.

If you reduce the volume for the same number of particles then they change direction more often and this means they radiate more energy. In a closed system that energy is re-absorbed by the same particles and so the energy-mass remains constant.

In an open system the energy is radiated away and so the particles slow down ie cool.

But the energy that comes from compressing a gas comes from this process. Whenever a particle changes direction or slows, it emits or absorbs a photon.

Gravity does not have to exchange energy with the gas cloud for this to happen.

Gravity curves spacetime so a particle can change direction by a distant observer's measure without emitting or absorbing a photon.

That's the way the universe is. It isn't my personal theory, model or version.
Uncle Ira
1 / 5 (2) May 07, 2014
But the energy that comes from compressing a gas comes from this process.


Non Cher that is wrong. The energy comes from whatever thing is doing the compressioning.

Gravity does not have to exchange energy with the gas cloud for this to happen.


It do unless you get something else to make the compressioning.

Gravity curves spacetime so a particle can change direction by a distant observer's measure without emitting or absorbing a photon.


I thought it was the compressioning of the gas we was talking about Cher. Or are you trying bamboozle the Ira-Skippy with going off into another subject not about the entropying of the gas in the compressor in the shut up systems?

That's the way the universe is. It isn't my personal theory, model or version.


You done let ol Ira show you up again Cher. That is not something you want peoples to take notice of no.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) May 07, 2014
because you, as a philo, totally misconstrue the concept of 'observer' by equating it with the maunderings of a long-dead superphilo
I have never stated any such thing
You state it A LOT.
Kant's epistemological transcendental deduction;, that a-priori cognitive faculties determine the form of experience, ... in effect the subset of Reality we regard as phenomenal reality (observer dependent), ... the 'unreality' above, would correspond philosophically to Kant's Noumenal reality, ... Reality unknowable in principal, Reality as it is in itself, apart from conforming to a-priori conditions for understanding

Interpretations of QM should be epistemological. The 'unreality' cannot be described in terms any better than Kant's Noumenon.
-And when we look for kants understanding of 'observer' we find

"I should not confuse the ever-present logical subject of my every thought with a permanent, immortal, real substance (soul)... The soul is not separate from the world."

EXPLAIN
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) May 07, 2014
From a previous thread
The Critique has nothing to do with god or religion,.... in fact the work even dispels with the notion that metaphysical questions are compatible with reason.

That is what the quote means,... "I had to deny knowledge [of god, of souls, ...of metaphysics] in order to make room for faith.",... which is to say metaphysical notions can NOT be a source of knowledge, thus must be relegated to mere belief. This should have pleased you, had you not been so willfully ignorant in your anti-x crusades
Kant calls you a liar.

"The schematicism by which our understanding deals with the phenomenal world ... is a skill so deeply hidden in the human soul "

"... with respect to the requirement that we attain the complete moral perfection of a holy will, Kant holds that we are justified in affirming that we will have an unending and enduring existence after death... we are justified in affirming that there is a supreme cause of nature [God] that will bring this about..."
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) May 07, 2014
Kant's personal belief in god has as much to do with his epistemology as the fact that Newton wrote more on theology than science has to do with how the earth orbits the sun.

Further I don't agree with Kant about everything, in fact the exact opposite of his transcendental knowledge. You continue to shot from the hip, without first loading your gun.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how you disagree with me wrt time. See your first post here and the topic of this article and the one I linked to....

Kant calls you a liar.


No because I never said anything about an observer based on souls (in your understanding (not mind)) or god.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) May 07, 2014
"Kant identifies metaphysics with an effort to acquire knowledge of "objects" conceived, but in no wise given (or giveable) to us in experience. In its efforts to bring knowledge to completion, that is, reason posits certain ideas, the "soul," the "world" and "God. [......] Although we think the soul, the world, and God (necessarily) as objects, these ideas actually lack objective reality (there is no object that corresponds to each of these ideas that is or could be given to us in any intuition). It is thus not uncommon to find Kant referring to these alleged metaphysical entities as "mere thought entities," "fictions of the brain," or "pseudo objects."
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) May 08, 2014
Noumenon, Entropy does not always increase in a closed system as I clearly outlined in my initial statements. [...] Choosing a higher entropy state than the average entropy as an initial condition you will find that entropy always falls in the short term.


A better statement would be that entropy tends towards equilibrium. From then on sure, the microstates of phase space continues to vary, however, these still remain with the same macrostate phase space volume, which are order of a magnitude larger than each other. The phase-space is compartmentalized in some appropriate way, and then the probabilities of the phase space point evolving into a larger macro-state volume are orders of a magnitude less likey.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) May 08, 2014
[EDIT] From then on sure, the microstates of phase space continues to vary, however, these still remain within the same macrostate phase space volume, which are orders of a magnitude different in volume size from each other. It is exceedingly unlikely that the phase space point will evolve to enter into a smaller Macrostate volume.
RobertKarlStonjek
1 / 5 (1) May 08, 2014
In other words, the initial condition, where the gas is confined to a small space, is exceeding unlikely. If I choose another unlikely state, maximum entropy, as my initial condition then entropy always falls (initially).

But as you say, the 'equilibrium' state or the set of state most probable or the range in which the most possible configurations of the particles can found is the one that the body of gas will tend toward.

As compression is an unlikely low entropy state and as gravity forces this state by curving spacetime then entropy is lower or, put another way, a star that radiates is going from a lower to higher entropy state. The reverse, the formation of the star, must, therefore, be an entropy lowering event.

In a closed system big enough to form a star the total energy remains the same, as does the entropy (assuming that the protons, electrons and photons do not decay). Or, eventually, equilibrium (including star formation and decay) is reached.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) May 08, 2014
When matter clumps together under the force of gravity you must consider also the heat generated (the photons radiated are still considered to be in the closed box) which over compensates for the position lowering entropy aspect you speak of.

[micro-state being of the individual gas molecules position, velocities, while macro-state being quantities like pressure, temperature,... there would be many micro-states for each possible macro-state]
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) May 08, 2014
Kant referring to these alleged metaphysical entities as "mere thought entities," "fictions of the brain," or "pseudo objects."
-So he contradicts himself. Big surprise.

"Kant hopes to show that Newtonian science does not lead to materialism and atheism, but rather that the susceptibility of matter to laws of motion proves both its divine spiritual origin and the existence in this world of both physical matter and embodied spiritual substance-what Kant calls "spirituous matter" (1:265, Jaki p. 115). The theological foundations of Newtonian mechanics and Kant's detailed account of our souls as spirituous matter located in the space occupied by our bodies are the central elements of his physical influx theory of the 1750s."

-So we have 3 problems with your kantian derivation of qm. 1) Kant had no knowledge of qm. 2) god and the soul are inextricable from his theories. And 3) Science allows for additional and more exacting future theories. Your custom ungodly theory does not.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) May 10, 2014
Although we think the soul, the world, and God (necessarily) as objects, these ideas actually lack objective reality (there is no object that corresponds to each of these ideas that is or could be given to us in any intuition). It is thus not uncommon to find Kant referring to these alleged metaphysical entities as "mere thought entities," "fictions of the brain," or "pseudo objects."


So he contradicts himself. Big surprise.


Since you have never read Kant in context, and only mine the internet for context free drive-by quotes, and are inflicted with an aversion to philosophy that makes it even more impossible to understand it,.. it is categorically more likely that you're conflating his logical analysis of reason as presented in COPR, with his more speculative writings, or his personal belief system. Not surprising.

KenX
5 / 5 (1) May 10, 2014
Several here conclude that the original state will be revisited, and also that the reverse trajectory will be revisited - given enough time.
But sorry, there is not enough time. The complexity of a 10^24
DOF system is such that "long enough time" will be time that makes the universe's lifetime look like a tiny flash. This is rarely considered, but makes all the difference. Infinite limits in math often work just fine to deal with observable and measurable physics, but not for philosophy of physics.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) May 11, 2014
Since you have never read Kant in context
I do better - I cite experts who have.
and only mine the internet for context free drive-by quotes
This is not the way to explain those quotes. The way to explain them is to offer quotes by kant himself saying that neither god nor the soul play any part whatsoever in cognition. You can't because to kant they were integral.
his more speculative writings, or his personal belief system. Not surprising.
Not me. An EXPERT wrote this:

"Kant hopes to show that Newtonian science does not lead to materialism and atheism, but rather that the susceptibility of matter to laws of motion proves both its divine spiritual origin and the existence in this world of both physical matter and embodied spiritual substance-what Kant calls "spirituous matter" (1:265, Jaki p. 115)"

REFUTE IT.

And:

3) Science allows for additional and more exacting future theories. Your custom ungodly theory does not.

EXPLAIN IT.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) May 11, 2014
The way to explain them is to offer quotes by kant himself saying that neither god nor the soul play any part whatsoever in cognition.


I already did this above. Do you not read my posts?

"It is thus not uncommon to find Kant referring to these alleged metaphysical entities ["soul," the "world" and "God.] as "mere thought entities," "fictions of the brain," or "pseudo objects."

I can't continue to have a pseudo-debate with one who refuses to read Kants work, and supplies quotes from other non-related works by Kant.

You're the type who will never admit you are wrong no matter how clear the contrast between facts and your web-bot-opinion.

3) Science allows for additional and more exacting future theories. Your custom ungodly theory does not


I don't even know what you're talking about here, do you?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) May 16, 2014
P.S. for you RobertKarlSkippy. If the system is shut up, there can't be no compressioning going on. Unless you talking about the gravity compressioning the gas. Then the gravity let's go some energy and passes it over to the compressioning gas. But if you got the outside piston compressioning, then your system ain't a shut system, it's getting something form the outside with the piston what is compressioning or whatever thing might be making the piston go.

Ira. think about the sterling engine. It could be a temp differential causing the gas in one side to "compress". In actuality, it's just causing the gas in the other tank to expand.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet May 16, 2014
Ira. think about the sterling engine. It could be a temp differential causing the gas in one side to "compress"...

My bad. Should have said "contract".