tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post8091700580906349825..comments2024-03-27T19:47:13.475-07:00Comments on Dark Buzz: Entropy, time, and causality are fundamentalRogerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-7679011264379825282017-06-30T13:03:31.781-07:002017-06-30T13:03:31.781-07:00Yes! In my first comment I cite Maxwell's vie...Yes! In my first comment I cite Maxwell's views on the second law of thermodynamics:<br /><br />James Clerk Maxwell seemed pretty content that science had a handle on the second law of thermodynamics: "The whole science of heat is founded Thermometry and Calorimetry, and when these operations are understood we may proceed to the third step, which is the investigation of those relations between the thermal and the mechanical properties of substances which form the subject of Thermodynamics. The whole of this part of the subject depends on the consideration of the Intrinsic Energy of a system of bodies, as depending on the temperature and physical state, as well as the form, motion, and relative position of these bodies. Of this energy, however, only a part is available for the purpose of producing mechanical work, and though the energy itself is indestructible, the available part is liable to diminution by the action of certain natural processes, such as conduction and radiation of heat, friction, and viscosity. These processes, by which energy is rendered unavailable as a source of work, are classed together under the name of the Dissipation of Energy.<br />Theory of Heat "Preface" (1871)" --Theory of Heat "Preface" (1871)<br /><br />The 2nd law of thermodynamics has the same degree of truth as the statement that if you throw a tumblerful of water into the sea, you cannot get the same tumblerful of water out again.<br />in a letter to Lord Rayleigh, as quoted in John William Strutt, Third Baron Rayleigh (1924), p. 47.<br /><br />Pigliucci tells us that if the tumblerful of water was small enough, it would be no problem getting the exact same molecules out of the sea again after ten minutes or so, as Pigliucci states that time can run backwards at "microscopic" levels, just as easily as it runs forwards.<br /><br />We invite Pigliucci to demonstrate his time-reversal experiment. How big will his tumblerful of water be, so that after throwing it in the water, ten minutes later he can extract the exact same molecules of water with the same tumbler? What size must this tumbler be? Massimo is welcome to use any size of "microscopic." :) Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11811856497202846228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-39270517307491454712017-06-30T12:22:27.655-07:002017-06-30T12:22:27.655-07:00Massimo has written books on pseudoscience, and ho...Massimo has written books on pseudoscience, and holds himself out as an expert on what is or is not science. Worse, he seems to be reflecting mainstream views of the philosophy profession.<br /><br />You have good examples, but entropy increase is not even something new. It has been known and accepted about as long as Faraday's Law has been.Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-69853068091996335042017-06-30T12:08:22.669-07:002017-06-30T12:08:22.669-07:00Massimo writes, "But entropy increase is simp...Massimo writes, "But entropy increase is simply an empirical observation. It’s not found anywhere in the equations. And that is the problem. Nobody denies that entropy increases, that time exists (well, actually some do), or that causes precede effects. The problem is that none of this is found in the equations of either quantum mechanics or general relativity. And those are the only fundamental theories about reality we have."<br /><br />When Faraday proposed Faraday's Law, it was "simply an empirical observation." "It wasn't found anywhere in the equations." <br /><br />Massimo would have dismissed and derided Faraday's discovery of Faraday's Law (and the field) as "a pproblem." He would have declared Farady's empirical observations to not be a part of physics, and he would have instead embraced string theory and the multiverse, as he does today.<br /><br />When Copernicus proposed the heliocentric universe, it was "simply an empirical observation." "It wasn't found anywhere in the equations." Massimo would have spat upon Copernicus (as well as Galileo for "empirically observing" phenomena supporting Coppernicus) as he penned and published his irrelevant philosophy pamphlets.<br /><br />When Galileo proposed that "all masses fall at the same rate," it was "simply an empirical observation." "It wasn't found anywhere in the equations."<br /><br />Massimo would have joined the Priesthood in persecuting Galileo.<br /><br />Were it up to Massimo, Faraday, Galileo, and Copernicus would have never been allowed to advance science via their "empirical observations," which Massimo would have dismissed as "problems."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11811856497202846228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-86755389451857089932017-06-27T21:42:06.454-07:002017-06-27T21:42:06.454-07:00James Clerk Maxwell seemed pretty content that sci...James Clerk Maxwell seemed pretty content that science had a handle on the second law of thermodynamics: "The whole science of heat is founded Thermometry and Calorimetry, and when these operations are understood we may proceed to the third step, which is the investigation of those relations between the thermal and the mechanical properties of substances which form the subject of Thermodynamics. The whole of this part of the subject depends on the consideration of the Intrinsic Energy of a system of bodies, as depending on the temperature and physical state, as well as the form, motion, and relative position of these bodies. Of this energy, however, only a part is available for the purpose of producing mechanical work, and though the energy itself is indestructible, the available part is liable to diminution by the action of certain natural processes, such as conduction and radiation of heat, friction, and viscosity. These processes, by which energy is rendered unavailable as a source of work, are classed together under the name of the Dissipation of Energy.<br />Theory of Heat "Preface" (1871)" --Theory of Heat "Preface" (1871)<br /><br />The 2nd law of thermodynamics has the same degree of truth as the statement that if you throw a tumblerful of water into the sea, you cannot get the same tumblerful of water out again.<br />in a letter to Lord Rayleigh, as quoted in John William Strutt, Third Baron Rayleigh (1924), p. 47.<br /><br />Pigliucci tells us that if the tumbler was small enough, it would be no problem getting it out of the sea again, as Pigliucci states that time runs backwards at "microscopic" levels.<br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11811856497202846228noreply@blogger.com