Along these lines of thought, the universe splitting or differentiation in MWI is said to be irreversible even though the equation of QM are time reversible. That might account for the arrow of time. Of course wave collapse is also irreversible and is similar to MWI to that extent.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 4:47 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Friday, November 14, 2014 9:30:00 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: >> >> On 13 November 2014 18:57, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> > There appears to be a discrepancy between entropy as it is ascribed to >>>> black holes and entropy in the form of configurations of mass-energy far >>>> from thermodynamic equilibrium. Black hole entropy appears to be a >>>> fundamental feature of physics, while the other sort only emerges due to >>>> coarse graining. I'd be interested to know if anyone can shed any light on >>>> this apparent discrepancy. >>>> >>> >> I'm not sure what you mean that there are 2 types of Entropy, it always >> works the same way. The Entropy of a Black Hole (and the Entropy of >> anything else) is Boltzmann's constant time the logarithm of the number of >> ways the Black Hole could have gotten into the state it's in now. The >> reason we use a logarithm in the definition is we want to be able to say >> that the total Entropy of the combined system X and Y is the Entropy of X >> PLUS the Entropy of Y, if we didn't use logarithms it would be X times Y. >> For example, if system X could have gotten to the way it is now in 3 >> different ways and system Y could have gotten to the way it is now in 5 >> different ways then the combined system could have gotten to the way it is >> now in 3*5 =15 different ways, but ln 3 + ln 5 = ln 15. >> >> Any constant could be used but it is convenient to use Boltzmann's >> constant because it's nice if Entropy is in units of energy/temperature. >> > > this where you strong strong strong. But the other day you say big > bang was consequence of entropy by 1851 as a direct consequence. You > obviously have never been in a situation of new discovery to be saying > that. People need masses of convergence and independence and linking and > all kinds of shit to progress a long chain of consequences. Anyway, why > would it have been rigourous in 1851 to say entropy was a universal when it > might have been tied to the steam turbine? or when the sun seemed to burn > forever and the cosmos seemed static and eternal. > > I still quite fancy yer mind > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
