JohnSSM

I can no longer discuss this topic, but apparently you can. Different perspectives are fun and valuable tools. To find some closure on at least one issue, how would you refer to the dynamics of thermal systems? Laws? Forces? Rules? Theories?

You only see me taking snide swipes? Perception and subjectivity are amazing things. I dont feel I was snide, only pointing out the realities in the context of my use of language. I will stop replying to people who simply cannot understand what I am saying, and who would rather make their own points, than address mine. I can do that. Ive been here before, I know the routine. Snideness is subjective. The oven needs to stay on to cook chicken. Im not asserting that the oven has any needs. The Earth needs a certain atmospheric warmth and make up, or biological life will not survive as well on earth. Im not asserting that the earth has any needs.

My statement also says it's not an original force, and that is the stipulation you missed. How's this? "If thermodynamics is not an original force of the universe, then it is a force created by the four original forces"

Haha, Well we all have our strengths. The language I use is very clear, although it may be more complex sentence structures than you are used to, and you are adding meaning to my words that is not there. I never said thermodynamics was a force of the universe. I made a supposition that it is not an original force of the universe. Its not silly, lets call it creative. There is a stipulation there between force and original force. I shouldnt have referred to it as a force, after saying it wasnt an original force, but what shall I refer to thermodynamics as a whole? Laws? Rules? Would it be incorrect to say "The forces of thermodynamics dictate how heat interacts." The rules, the laws? What works best for conversation?

I never said that thermodynamics was a force, so I'm not sure why you're pointing it out to me. I was simply trying to make a point that every dynamic, law, or rule in physics, or in the world, all come from one source, which is the combined expressions of the four forces. IN following the conversation you would see that studiot said "Thermodynamics is indifferent to whether there are four or four hundred or four thousand 'forces' acting or available. In short it is not about forces." I was pointing out how wrong this perspective is. The only reason there is thermodynamics is because of the four forces. He's right, it doesnt matter how many there are, which was never my point, my point is that we know there are four. So it's not important at all, I was explaining reality to studiot. They named it the strong force because of it's strong force of holding quarks, protons, nuetrons, etc together. It is not named for it's repulsive tendencies, so I do see your point, but mine is more obvious.

I find it amazing that you get frustrated to the point of seeming offended because I make points from perspectives that do not please you. At this point i'm just following a conversation. This was my reply to you and you didnt address any of it. Do you just ignore the into you dont like during communication? That will never be a model for good communication and im wondering if that is your goal here at all. "I was building off of something that sethoflagos said, and I had also thought before. "The CMBR map tells us that the early universe was extremely close to thermal equilibrium (and in a relatively low entropy state) at least until recombination." I suppose he must be making an assumption about the state of the universe before the big bang. He assumes, and so did I, that the pre-big bang universe has very little entropy. This leads to the belief that the big bang represented a huge shift in universal entropy, from low entropy to much entropy. Are we both making a subjective assumption about the true state of entropy that no one really knows? "

Nothing in my sentence makes any conclusions about the earth's needs aside from the requirements to maintain biological life, which it doesn't need to do.

If thermodynamics is not an original force of the universe, then it is a force created by the four forces, which makes it a factor of those forces. The only reason thermodynamics has dynamics to study, which create laws, is because of the four forces, not because of heat or dynamics. Heat and dynamics only exist because of the four forces. Time is not a force of the universe either. IF there were forces that acted independently of the four forces, then there would be a fifth and sixth force, but there arent. So my observation is simple and obvious. Which repulsive force is that? It's not gravity or the strong nuclear force. Electromagnetism is not repulsive anymore than it is attractive and the weak force is also not repulsive.

My sentence formation and grammar made complete sense and was totally accurate. "Needs" is a verb, which refers to an earth state, to support biological life. If the Earth is going to support biological life, then it needs certain atmospheric conditions.

The Earth needs a certain atmospheric warmth and make up, or biological life will not survive as well on earth. I would look to data collected by old scientists about the make up of our atmosphere through time by reading ice samples of varying depths. I think they already determined what the balance of Co2 has been historically, and used that data to create a norm of Co2 levels. A very large volcanic plume can add millions of tons of Co2 into our atmosphere. The industrial revolution has added over 2000 billion tons of Co2. So if every volcano released 500 million metric tons, how long does it take to get to 2000 billion tons? 4000 large volcanic events. "Human activities—mostly burning of coal and other fossil fuels, but also cement production, deforestation and other landscape changes—emitted roughly 40 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2015" So we would need 80 very large volcanos per year to equal that." So that would take 80 large volcanos in one year. Using Bayesian methods which remain unclear, even to me, I can say that man made global warming is a huge added factor to our greenhouse gas overproduction and it's effects.

Yes. I am a psychological researcher, and developed my own ideas of living systems, evolving from an already existing non-living system, based on the fundamental reactions of the four forces and all the laws they create. The existence of heat can only be a function of those four forces in a certain state, so thermal dynamics isn't a fundamental force in the universe, but it does behave in accordance with the four forces and it does create a new subset of laws that direct how heat acts. But it's not just heat, it's all energy. Neither is entropy a fundamental force of the universe, but still creates realities and laws that dictate it. Biological life and evolution use the same doctrines created along the way, and so do our brains. So psychology and personality disorders, and psychiatry and neurology all use the same doctrines as well. It is a theory of every process which creates all the systems of the universe. Living systems evolved to give the universe subjectivity. We now interpret rules and make rules to deal with our senses. Psychology as a system developed to bring order to thoughts, using the tenants of saving free energy, minimizing entropy and surprise, to simply endure or survive. So yes, a theory of everything. Doesnt that fact that magnets lose their electromagnetic drives to order, when exposed to high heat, mean anything to this perspective? Isnt heat always entropic in nature? I suppose if the goal is creating ash from leaves, then heat could be seen as ordered to that goal. But doesnt it take high entropy to turn a leaf into ash? Is there any perspective which claims, the ash from leaves is more ordered than the leaf itself? Does the requirement of adding energy to the properties of the leaf in an oxygen environment show that energy is needed for entropy as it adds entropic possibilities to create ash? IS there no strict determination of a loss or gain in entropy? It's always relative when you dont know the nature of your own system?

I was building off of something that sethoflagos said, and I had also thought before. "The CMBR map tells us that the early universe was extremely close to thermal equilibrium (and in a relatively low entropy state) at least until recombination." I suppose he must be making an assumption about the state of the universe before the big bang. He assumes, and so did I, that the pre-big bang universe has very little entropy. This leads to the belief that the big bang represented a huge shift in universal entropy, from low entropy to much entropy. Are we both making a subjective assumption about the true state of entropy that no one really knows? In that first instant post BB it was so hot, that the four forces were all united/combined into what has been called the "Superforce": As temperatures and pressures dropped, the superforce started to decouple, gravity first. This created phase transitions and false vacuums, and the excesses of energy went into creating our first fundamental particles. At three minutes post BB, conditions were such that the first atomic nuclei formed, protons/Neutrons. It took another 380,000 years for conditions to be such that electrons were able to be captured by the atomic nuclei and our first light elements were formed....H and He. From there gravity worked its magic and Abiogeneis and voila!! here we are! I wouldnt see them as combined, I would see them as equally ineffective in their mission to bring order back. The energy of the big bang could not be instantly contained by the forces that were working to keep them at a low entropy state before the big bang. It seems, if the four forces were always there, holding us in a state of low to no entropy, until something triggered this huge and dramatic change of entropy, called the big bang, doesn't it make sense that the four forces were now working to bring all that energy back to a low entropy state? Don't forces by their very nature present an order and in that, an opposition to high entropy states? But, in this process of regaining order, entropy must go through an evolution of low entropy states to high entropy states. IF we plotted the low entropy state of the universe at big bang to the different entropy states it experiences to regain order through the four forces, wouldn't we see a wave overtime in entropy itself?

Sure, entropy is a function of states, and a loss of heat always creates a correlation in a loss of entropy. But it didn't take a heating to create the the first clumps of matter that grew into stars that burst into nuclear fusion due to gravity. It took a cooling, or a loss of heat, after an initial heating. Im not applying the laws and structure of thermodynamics, Im applying a model of thermodynamics. To apply the laws, I would need to establish a state function for the universe as it cooled, then I would need a state function that created the heat within stars from fusion. I know that entropy is about more than heat and could apply to many forms of energy, if not all. So we cant make a statement that the universe was losing entropy as it cooled after inflation? And that nuclear fusion didnt increase entropy to create heavier elements with more possibilities?

In my studies of the early universe, the four forces of the universe could only take action once the universe had cooled substantially. This could be seen as a period of less entropy, while reaching thermal equilibrium. And it was only because of the cooling, and the forces of the universe that simple atoms could gather into objects massive enough to create the gravity needed to bring on another stage of entropy, in nuclear fusion. So it seems the universe switched from a period of low entropy before the big bag, to a period of high entropy, after the big, which led to inflation, cooling and a period of lowering entropy to create solid matter, which actually creates more entropy, and gravities' influence can finally take hold, taking away entropy as it orders matter together, and then gravity reaches the other side of entropy as it allows for fusion and the creation of even more molecules, which increases entropy, but allows for yet, more order, as those compounds mix together with more possibilities of entropy, introduced by water, gases, heat, friction, light, and we get living systems from a non living system, who all experience their time as survival in terms of order and entropy. Do you see every stage of the universe only in terms of the continuation of a gain or a loss of entropy? Or do you see this back and forth evolution as I tried to describe?

In an effort to understand how mutations and natural selection could lead to the modern human eye, and the brain, which has developed along with it, I began to study the evolution of the eye. I came here and read a few applicable threads and read through them, and I was introduced to all the different types of genetic mutations. I am looking for types of mutations that are not random. This is because I don't believe the earliest mutations which began the continuing evolution of the eye, for instance, were random. As I understand it, biological life may never have began without light. And before any organisms had eyes, they had ways to process light for it's energy. These biological systems were already using light, and could move to find light before we ever had anything close to an eyes with images. So I studied the evolution of photosynthesis and of course, you find no references to the evolution of the eyes. In other words, cells were already capable of processing light. So we started absorbing and using light in our biological engines from very early on. Any cell mutation after that would not seem random. It would be building upon the cell's ability to use light one way, and then develop a tool or a sense to use it another way, as a source of information and not just energy. Is the idea of random mutations that our cells made millions of mutations that could have used all sorts of sensory input for sources that don't even exist? Organisms developed senses to sense the sources of info in our environments. Didn't we first have to detect sound on some level, perhaps as vibrations, before we evolved ears to make more sense of those vibrations? OR, our gene's just happened to create a mutation that led to a cell that could detect sound? Or is hearing and our ear drums simply an extension of having nerves that could already detect touches, and was exposed to sounds with enough pressure to feel through those nerves? Then another random mutation came along and started building the framework in the brain to use and process that info? Im sure the experts around here have dealt with these types of questions before, and I did try to find a thread that addressed it directly. In the end, Im looking for any type of mutation that uses environmental influences to guide the mutation. With a subject like our senses, where portions of the brain had to evolve along with the physical structure of the sensory gathering instrument itself, the eyes seeming to be the most complex, with the most amount of brain used to process it, does the brain not influence the further mutations "needed" in the physical tool? Do no mutations use the brain to guide the mutation of the gene for better performance? OR even different performance? Which is to say, maybe early biological life didn't need light to be created, but at some point, it used light for energy, and then at another point, it used light for info gathering in more detail, and our brains had to evolve to process and make sense of it. None of these mutations were inspired by an earlier mutation, or even the biological goals of our brains to understand our surroundings to better survive? Survival inspires us to find better ways to survive. This plays no role in our gene development?

Studiot. I simply have to use real world examples to understand equations. So I offered a totally real world example, and it didnt work at all, did it? I am the student here. I still have yet to hear you mention a real world example. I have doubts that you can even think of one and present it at this point, but what does it matter? I have the knowledge I need to move on. Thanks!

I have no interest in sunspots, but I cannot understand things with equations that use no reference. And I have yet to see any real world references to those equations. SO you can tell me to consider a topic with a large set of possibiltiies, then figure the probability for each one, and then multiply it by the event itself. Thats essentially what you told me to do, but it doesnt work at all for sunspots. So can you tell me what it does work for? Can you create a real world example of a probability you are trying to know, then give me the A, B, C, D possible states it will be in, and then show me the results of multiplying them by the event itself? I even got pretty far with calculus, and just have no idea what you might solve with the equations you presented. Alas, im not sure I need to understand that, but a real world example helps folks like me. Your input actually helped me a lot. Inspiration is usually the responsible party...ha

Thank you. Yes, given enough departure from equilibrium, it did create biological life. The point being, human evolution was just another step of universal evolution. And so are stars, as they are what is needed to create heavier elements through fusion, and those heavier elements is what it needed to create life. And what event started all this departing from equilibrium? The start of the universe. IF you consider that the big bang is real in some way, do you believe it had ultimate order and perfect equilibrium before the bang? The bang happened, and now the four forces are attempting to re-order the huge loss of equilibrium? I dont need a theory that can convince physicists, as it is a book about the brain and psychology, but i dont want the theory to be physical impossible...afterall, it did happen. Now I do understand the difference between the Gibbs and Hemholtz approaches. So a Gibbs system must use pressure to drive the system and the Hemlholtz system is using heat. No sweat. Ha

Why exactly do people believe that going into a black hole is like entering stretched space? Time dilation dictates that time runs slower near massive objects. With space and time being linked, how does slowing down time, also create an effect of a hole that is stretching space as you fall into it? DO you imagine there being very much space, because it takes so long to get though it? Are you imagining an inverse relationship between time and space or spacetime? I dont believe the continuum runs with an inverse. So if you slowed down time, wouldn't you also need to make less space in keeping with non inverse relativity? Or is time now running slower, because space is stretched? IS that where im getting confused? I know that time runs slower near massive objects. How does that mix with this reality of falling into a black hole and stretching in space. A dip in the fabric creates a hole we fall into? No, a concentration of energy, defined by the amount of compression exerted upon it, changes spacetime and the effect is called gravity and it seems to cause attraction. But if that massive energy is truly just taking the value away from time, by slowing it down, as it loses strength as it extends outwards, this bending space time all around it will curve light and even changes the definition of what we experience as a straight line. It is literally bending spacetime, in concentric rings of compression, which become less compressed the farther away from the massive energy that you get. And then time speeds up. Less compressed the farther away you get. Less compressed is stretched, and it happens the farther away you get from a black hole. So a black hole must create a compression the closer you get, which is why time does run slower, and they all think space gets bigger? Or do you just look stretched, to someone in a less compressed reality.

Studiot, I think I did figure out thermodynamic entropy. In one explanation I read, it came down to heat. In simple terms, cold things have more order and less entropy, even when they appear to have more or less disorder to our own perceived standards of order. A nice example. A glass of crushed ice may appear to be more disordered, than a nice glass of evenly distributed water. That is how I might perceive the disorder according to my subjective beliefs about order. But, the truth of theromdynamic entropy is that water gains entropy as it heats up, and loses it as it cools and approaches order. The result doesnt look ordered to me, and that is how powerful subjectivity is. Now I fully see that cold objects have less probability within them, and less probability means more predictable order, entropy from heat which creates vibrations, creates more possibility for probability, and along with it entropy, and as it loses the vibrations that inspire its possibilities down to nothing, or absolute zero. It then becomes totally cold, mostly motionless, with very few possibilities to add to its probability matrix. Removing variables until order is achieved. But entropy doesnt want that! To entropy, variables are possibilities for more freedom. To order, each variable creates another possibility to lose order. They call this surprise in some realms. I think it's a bad analogy. ITs not just surprise, there is an inherent fear, in order to dislike entropy. Of course, it isnt a fear in thermodynamics. Entropy and order simply work against each other. Entropy takes work, or energy or heat. So, when you want to add what you believe to be order to your lawn, during fall, you actually add entropy to the lawn to organize the leaves and take them away. If you have the free energy to do so, it will take heat that you can count as calories. This transfer of heat now puts your body is a state of more order, as you lose heat, but without more heat, you will lose your ability to organize leaves, so we eat to replace the heat. Order can kill the body, which is why almost everything lives in a state of equilibrium. Thermodynamcally, the most order for our bodies would be found at absolute zero. IN terms of life, our best thermodynamic equilibrium seems to be 98.6 degrees. And in this way, entropy can be relatively applied to solve any problem, or find any solution. Like, how to get to the store quickest, without breaking laws or risking more entropy, because if I dont rush and find the fastest route, I am risking not being able to pick up my son. If I am late to pick up my son, it creates more disorder in my life, and the apparent disorder may make him believe i cannot produce the probabilities to care for him in a timely fashion. Our human selves seek to fight the entropy of disorder. IF we don't spend that energy, our life sinks into disorder, which can create actual disorders of thinking, even in our son. That all came together just now. Thanks for the inspiration. You heated me up just enough to make me put more energy into balancing mu own understanding. Its exactly what we need from each other. Thank you!

I have read your reply and thought on it many times, re-reading it slowly in order to find the order. I believe you do know what you are talking about. But I still don't. Ha. I want to follow your instructions as best as I can. The system I want to consider is the sun, and the amount of, size of and percentage of the sun, taken up by sunspots are the various states. It should turn out to be a proportion of the amount of sunspots to non-sunspots. I have no way to predict the probability of finding the sun in any of these states, and that is what Im trying to figure out. SO I dont understand how I might be able to summarize them with the state itself. ie...P(a). I have no idea of the probability of that state occurring, s I cant come up with a P that is valid in anyway. And how do you multiple a certain state of the sun, when it comes to sunspot coverage, by the probability of that state happening, even if you do know the probability? Is this something that can be applied to figuring out possible random states of the sun? And if those are terms that do not work with this understanding, what terms should i be using? I assume, numbers, but in the physics, those numbers must represent some physical property or law. I truly appreciate the time you put into this explanation. If you how I have interpreted your explanation, can you give me some "real world" applications of your explanation? Right off the bat, I dont know what world to apply those terms. Also Studiot. Doesnt thermodynamic entropy require a closed system? When the magnet enters the picture, the system is no longer closed. The energy of magnetism is now effecting the iron flakes, and it was not before. Doesnt the magnet introduce, order, in the form of energy, that the iron must respond to? If the iron flakes follow the order of magnetism, at least in magnetism's sake, it seems to have created order and taken away entropy, or added negentropy.

Not a rigorous mapping, indeed. It is the difference between non-equilibrium and equilibrium systems. "The free energy principle is a formal statement that explains how living and non-living systems remain in non-equilibrium steady-states by restricting themselves to a limited number of states.[1] It establishes that systems minimise a free energy function of their internal states, which entail beliefs about hidden states in their environment. The implicit minimisation of free energy is formally related to variational Bayesian methods and was originally introduced by Karl Friston as an explanation for embodied perception in neuroscience,[2] where it is also known as active inference." I dont understand a NON-EQUILIBRIUM steady state. I think I do understand now. I thought that non-equilibrium thermodynamics was the opposite of equilibrium thermodynamics, when it actually seems to be a category of, which involves the transfer of energy to achieve equilibrium. But I like to nail down an example so I can accurately describe it to others who wont have the physics background to get it. I came up with the water capsule in a water tank. IF the capsule and the tank both hold the same amount of water, and the tank is at 50 degrees and the capsule water is at 60 degrees, if we can assume an uninterupted transfer of heat, or path to equilibrium, eventually all the water in the tank and capsule would be 55 degrees if all the water didnt lose any heat energy anywhere else. A closed system is what they call this? Being exposed to each other, the closed systems have to account for the state of the other, and the capsule loses its heat energy to the tank water, and they become one system with its own equilibrium state again. AM I showing how equilibrium works, is a law of physics and describing the process of non-equilibrium states brought together? Could one say, in very simple terms, that the water capsule had to give the tank water, 5 degrees of heat energy? Just for conceptual purposes in the frame of this example? The psychological question becomes, how many folks perceived a worth in spending their energy to read this topic, or answer it. Their perception of me would greatly effect that decision. The truth is, my question presents a problem. Some folks may pass on answering it because they don't have the free energy to deal with it, but physics says they do. Me having a question and you having answer presents a loss of equilibrium between us. In physics, you would not have the CHOICE but to answer my question, as the water has no choice in losing it's heat to a cooler system, but it may take hours or days for all the heat to find an equilibrium, and it may take hours or days to try to answer my question. Humans are presented with nonequilibrium constantly, but having free will, as opposed to non a biological system with feelings and emotions to ultimately guide them against the order that nature must follow. Nature expects your knowledge to flow into me, if I have a lack of that knowledge. But you hav a choice in enabling that flow, and that's why this is soooo amazing to me. IF there is a riot, the amount of people who join in will depend on how they value their own free energy, and how they choose to use it. This theory will be huge in sociology. That's my bet. So thanks for the attention! Any further explanations of the process involved in thermodynamic equilibrium and free energy would be great. The mapping between the two subjects of physics and neurology and psychology has not been maximized. SO any info I get, can help me to maximize the mapping between the 2.

Im not sure how to directly reply to anyone, but this is in reply to Swansont. I should explain myself further. With a small theoretical knowledge of many different subjects in physics, I am a psychological writer. Carl Friston has a psychiatry based theory of free energy, which he adopted from the theories of thermodynamic free energy. I have read the wikipedia on thermodyamic free energy, and have many clues to understanding it, but with conceptual thinking only. Theoretical understandings are all I need to grasp, just so I can grasp how the free energy concept applies to neurology and the very way our own brains seek order, and part of that order is saving energy while creating negentropy. Friston uses the concepts from thermodynamic free energy, to model how our brains evolved. He combines elements from Bayesian models of probability, the Markov blanket, along with entropy and negentropy. I understand Bayes, The concept named after Markov, and i think I understand entropy and negentropy. What I still dont get is free energy and what it is based on. It sounds like potential energy to me, but there seems to be a difference. As I understand it, Feynman developed this free energy model in thermodynamics, trying to figure out the probability of the path any election might take, and how heat transfers from one system to another. So, Ive looked very far into the topic, but can only skim the surface of all the concepts behind it, and just need a way to rationalize it so I can use that understanding and that model it in my own thoughts. I know it's a very different approach than a quantified scientist takes, but I have to approach it only to model these laws in neurological behavior, not understand their truest nature. But, I may be in the wrong place. Ha...I do appreciate your answers, but have no real base of knowledge to respond, which is why I chose to include some examples and then asked for other real world examples.

IF one were to view entropy as disorder, or the tendency to become less ordered, then order is referred to as negentropy. The presence of the magnet adds energy and order (magnetic field), so it adds negentropy. "after some time has passed, the density of iron particles on the magnet side of the jar will be significantly higher than the density at the opposite side. Considering entropy, such a behavior should only be possible if the total amount of entropy increases or at least stays the same." The magnet adds order, which the iron particles must follow, this would be a loss of entropy, not a gain. The magnet adds order, and the randomness becomes ordered as the iron flakes migrate towards the magnet. I dont understand why you believe randomness is order and magnetism is disorder. It seems backwards to me, but I am new to understanding entropy.

I am looking to fully grasp the concept of what "free energy" means in terms of thermodynamic systems. I understand why free energy is the amount of work that any system can perform, which represents an amount energy itself. But I dont understand the stipulation of "at a constant temperature". And what this mean for equilibrium vs non equilibrium thermodynamics. I was hoping for a real world example of a system using equilibrium thermodynamic and non equilibrium thermodynamics. I understand that if you put a sealed plastic bag, full of water at 80 degrees, into a tank of water at 60 degrees, that thermodynamic equilibrium will cause the heat energy from the plastic bag of warm water, to transfer into the cooler water, until they are both the same temperature. IS that equilibrium or non equilibrium thermodynamics? And what is an example of the other? And how could we begin to define or estimate how much free energy the 80 degree water has. And it seems to be, I remember reading that Feynman describes how there is always just a bit more free energy available, than the work that needs to be done, and it doesnt make much sense to me. Any info in understanding free energy?