One more point about the mobile shock-wave- eventually it will obliterate other languages and cultures- do they have a choice in the matter? Also was thinking perhaps Apple products are constructed by hand in Asian countries because of the abundance of delicate hands and special dexterity which I hope is not taken in the wrong way.//Yes- militant feminism has hurt the feminine principle overall- but that is another topic.
On Oct 19, 8:06 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > I took a course on the Snow-Leavis(1959-1962) controversy in the > mid-'70's. Perhaps we should then conclude scientists do not > understand humanism? Other works involved included various essays and > books by Aldous Huxley ("Literature and Science") and Bronowski > ("Science and Human Values"). Not sure that "incomprehension and > dislike"(Snow) between the two groups has changed at all when > considering the gap between rich and poor nations, smart weapons, etc. > as science and militarism promote the self-interest of various nations/ > political theories and practices. Should we quibble that Nazi > scientists propelled the USA moon landing? At least the moon survived. > > On Oct 19, 1:37 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The below is rather long, but physics is returning to some of the > > ideas of James Maxwell. My dog is named after him. Years ago, we > > were told their were two cultures ( CP Snow) - one knew the 2nd law of > > thermodynamics and the other did not (literary types). The 2nd law > > involved was a straw man. The following, as Max needs his walk, is > > paraphrased from last week's New Scientist. > > > A few decades after Carnot, the German physicist Rudolph Clausius > > explained such phenomena in terms of a quantity characterising > > disorder that he called entropy. In this picture, the universe works > > on the back of processes that increase entropy - for example > > dissipating heat from places where it is concentrated, and therefore > > more ordered, to cooler areas, where it is not. That predicts a grim > > fate for the universe itself. Once all heat is maximally dissipated, > > no useful process can happen in it any more: it dies a "heat death". A > > perplexing question is raised at the other end of cosmic history, too. > > If nature always favours states of high entropy, how and why did the > > universe start in a state that seems to have been of comparatively low > > entropy? At present we have no answer, and there is an intriguing > > alternative view. > > > Perhaps because of such undesirable consequences, the legitimacy of > > the second law was for a long time questioned. The charge was > > formulated with the most striking clarity by the Scottish physicist > > James Clerk Maxwell in 1867. He was satisfied that inanimate matter > > presented no difficulty for the second law. In an isolated system, > > heat always passes from the hotter to the cooler, and a neat clump of > > dye molecules readily dissolves in water and disperses randomly, never > > the other way round. Disorder as embodied by entropy does always > > increase. Maxwell's problem was with life. Living things have > > "intentionality": they deliberately do things to other things to make > > life easier for themselves. Conceivably, they might try to reduce the > > entropy of their surroundings and thereby violate the second law. > > Such a possibility is highly disturbing to physicists. Either > > something is a universal law or it is merely a cover for something > > deeper. Yet it was only in the late 1970s that Maxwell's entropy- > > fiddling "demon" was laid to rest. Its slayer was the US physicist > > Charles Bennett, who built on work by his colleague at IBM, Rolf > > Landauer, using the theory of information developed a few decades > > earlier by Claude Shannon. An intelligent being can certainly > > rearrange things to lower the entropy of its environment. But to do > > this, it must first fill up its memory, gaining information as to how > > things are arranged in the first place. > > > This acquired information must be encoded somewhere, presumably in the > > demon's memory. When this memory is finally full, or the being dies or > > otherwise expires, it must be reset. Dumping all this stored, ordered > > information back into the environment increases entropy - and this > > entropy increase, Bennett showed, will ultimately always be at least > > as large as the entropy reduction the demon originally achieved. Thus > > the status of the second law was assured, albeit anchored in a mantra > > of Landauer's that would have been unintelligible to the 19th-century > > progenitors of thermodynamics: that "information is physical". > > James Joule's 19th century experiments with beer can be used to > > illustrate this idea. The English brewer, whose name lives on in the > > standard unit of energy, sealed beer in a thermally isolated tub > > containing a paddle wheel that was connected to weights falling under > > gravity outside. The wheel's rotation warmed the beer, increasing the > > disorder of its molecules and therefore its entropy. But hard as we > > might try, we simply cannot use Joule's set-up to decrease the beer's > > temperature, even by a fraction of a millikelvin. Cooler beer is, in > > this instance, a state regrettably beyond the reach of physics. > > > The question is whether we can express the whole of physics simply by > > enumerating possible and impossible processes in a given situation. > > This is very different from how physics is usually phrased, in both > > the classical and quantum regimes, in terms of states of systems and > > equations that describe how those states change in time. The blind > > alleys down which the standard approach can lead are easiest to > > understand in classical physics, where the dynamical equations we > > derive allow a whole host of processes that patently do not occur - > > the ones we have to conjure up the laws of thermodynamics expressly to > > forbid, such as dye molecules reclumping spontaneously in water. > > > By reversing the logic, our observations of the natural world can > > again take the lead in deriving our theories. We observe the > > prohibitions that nature puts in place, be it on decreasing entropy, > > getting energy from nothing, travelling faster than light or whatever. > > The ultimately "correct" theory of physics - the logically tightest - > > is the one from which the smallest deviation gives us something that > > breaks those taboos. > > > There are other advantages in recasting physics in such terms. Time is > > a perennially problematic concept in physical theories. In quantum > > theory, for example, it enters as an extraneous parameter of unclear > > origin that cannot itself be quantised. In thermodynamics, meanwhile, > > the passage of time is entropy increase by any other name. A process > > such as dissolved dye molecules forming themselves into a clump > > offends our sensibilities because it appears to amount to running time > > backwards as much as anything else, although the real objection is > > that it decreases entropy. > > > Apply this logic more generally, and time ceases to exist as an > > independent, fundamental entity, but one whose flow is determined > > purely in terms of allowed and disallowed processes. With it go > > problems such as why the universe started in a state of low entropy. > > If states and their dynamical evolution over time cease to be the > > question, then anything that does not break any transformational rules > > becomes a valid answer. > > > Such an approach would probably please Einstein, who once said: "What > > really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of > > the world." A thermodynamically inspired formulation of physics might > > not answer that question directly, but leaves God with no choice but > > to be a thermodynamicist. That would be a singular accolade for those > > 19th-century masters of steam: that they stumbled upon the essence of > > the universe, entirely by accident. The triumph of thermodynamics > > would then be a revolution by stealth, 200 years in the making. > > > While thermodynamics seems to float above the precise content of the > > physical world it describes, whether classical, quantum or post- > > quantum, its connection with the other pillar of modern physics, > > general relativity, might be more direct. General relativity describes > > the force of gravity. In 1995, Ted Jacobson of the University of > > Maryland in College Park claimed that gravity could be a consequence > > of disorder as quantified by entropy. His mathematical argument is > > surprisingly simple, but rests on two disputed theoretical > > relationships. The first was argued by Jacob Bekenstein in the early > > 1970s, who was examining the fate of the information in a body gulped > > by a black hole. This is a naked challenge to the universal validity > > of thermodynamics: any increase in disorder in the cosmos could be > > reversed by throwing the affected system into a black hole. > > > Bekenstein showed that this would be countered if the black hole > > simply grew in area in proportion to the entropy of the body it was > > swallowing. Then each tiny part of its surface would correspond to one > > bit of information that still counts in the universe's ledger. This > > relationship has since been elevated to the status of a principle, the > > holographic principle, that is supported by a host of other > > theoretical ideas – but not as yet by any experiment. > > > The second relationship is a suggestion by Paul Davies and William > > Unruh, also first made in the 1970s, that an accelerating body > > radiates tiny amounts of heat. A thermometer waved around in a perfect > > vacuum, where there are no moving atoms that can provide us with a > > normal conception of temperature, will record a non-zero temperature. > > This is an attractive yet counter-intuitive idea, but accelerations > > far beyond what can presently be achieved are required to generate > > enough radiation to test it experimentally. > > > Put these two speculative relations together with standard, undisputed > > connections between entropy, temperature, kinetic energy and velocity, > > and it is possible to construct a quantity that mathematically looks > > like gravity, but is defined in terms of entropy. Others have since > > been tempted down the same route, most recently Erik Verlinde of the > > University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands. Such theories, which are > > by no means > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --
