Don't how God can only be an observer when the entire universe is made up of his being. As for rainbows the wife and I physically drive one once the colors were spectacular and flowing all around us.. WOW Allan
Air gunner full of hot air ready to release it quickly On Oct 20, 2012 8:41 AM, "Vam" <[email protected]> wrote: > You spoke of Einstein, about his ” only ” interest being whether > God<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God> had > any choice in manifesting the universe and this observed creation. > > My own suggestion is that if we do not know enough we will always think > along those lines. > > To the uninitiate, the desktops of today would seem to be thinking > entities ... > > *So, do we know enough ?* > > > > <https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-EBJSz8MhWQU/UIJGzwpvR3I/AAAAAAAAB0A/cJjwxDRH4Q0/s1600/All+You+Did+Not+Know+About+Yourself.jpg> > > > > On Saturday, October 20, 2012 6:36:45 AM UTC+5:30, rigsy03 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 universally accepted, suggest that when bodies fall >> > together it is not the effect of a separate fundamental force called >> > gravity, but because the heating that results best fulfils the >> > thermodynamic diktat that entropy in the universe must always >> > increase. >> > >> > A possible religious implication of this is that laife after death is >> > already with us - information does not 'die'. >> > >> > On 19 Oct, 19:08, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > > I've seen the landscape change too Allan - East Anglia is a prime >> > > example - one could almost think the soil blows away into the North >> > > Sea. I'm with rigsy on the male domination aspect, though increasing >> > > 'feminisation' has changed little other than making the rooms we >> > > inhabit look better. I also agree on the benefits of 'robot heaven' >> > > on chores and plumbing - we should be extending this into a wider >> > > quality of work life world-wide too. >> > > I think science and reasonably scrupulous history has exposed our >> > > religious texts and national pride ideologies as myth. >> > >> > ... >> > >> > read more »- Hide quoted text - >> > >> > - Show quoted text - >> > -- > > > > --
