Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

[Bruno Marchal]

s the radioactivity of the radium sample near the 
>>>> Geiger counter. Does the measurement show that radium is not radioactive?
>>>> 
>>>> b)  He then measures the radioactivity of a second radium sample far 
>>>> away from the counter. Is it radioactive? Is there a difference between 
>>>> the radioactivity of the two samples? Why or why not?
>>>> 
>>>> c)   Dr. Katz may conclude that radium is simply not radioactive and, 
>>>> therefore, the radium-counter-explosive link is not operational. He turns 
>>>> off the inoperational counter and again measures the radioactivity of both 
>>>> radium samples (near and far from the counter) Is there any change in the 
>>>> measurements?
>>>> 
>>>> d)  He then measures the radioactivity of a polonium sample far from 
>>>> the counter. What does he find?
>>>> 
>>>> e)  Finally, he opens (from the inside) the door of the chamber, steps 
>>>> outside, and repeat radioactivity measurement on radium and polonium 
>>>> samples located outside. What does   he find? The same as 
>>>> or different from the inside?
>>>> 
>>>> How does Dr. Katz explain his findings? Are the (electromagnetic, strong, 
>>>> weak) forces the same inside and outside the chamber? Is energy conserved?
>>>> 
>>>> 2)  Second Law. (These experiments attempt to link quantization to the 
>>>> second law)
>>>> 
>>>> Dr. Schrodinger replaces the radium sample and Geiger counter by a heat 
>>>> flow device comprised of a metal bar, hot at one end and cold at the 
>>>> other, and a differential thermometer that measures the temperature 
>>>> difference between the two ends of the bar. When the difference falls 
>>>> below a predetermined value, the thermometer triggers the explosive. Dr. 
>>>> Katz is willing to conduct experiments in this new chamber.
>>>> 
>>>> a)  Dr. Katz measures the temperature difference of the bar. Again, 
>>>> following Tegmark’s cue, one may believe that the temperature difference 
>>>> never falls below the predetermined value.
>>>> 
>>>> b)  Dr. Katz measures heat flow in a metal bar far away from the 
>>>> thermometer. Does he observe the same kind of anomaly as close to the 
>>>> thermometer?  How does Katz explain what he measures?  Does his 
>>>> explanation involve quantization of thermal energy?
>>>> 
>>>> c)   What if he opens the door and steps outside the chamber? Does he 
>>>> observe any difference in heat flow?
>>>> 
>>>> I do not have any firm answers to any of these thought experiments - just 
>>>> guesses. Do you know the answers?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> My fairly confident guess is that Dr. Katz is killed in the first 
>>> experiment and never gets to the second one.
>> 
>> That’s why most friends of Dr Katz will say, and perceive. 
>> 
>> Obviously, that is not what Dr Katz can ever feel, here or there, whichever 
>> computational history he might be living after the experiences. 
>> 
>> Now, in between being far away from the radioactive source, or being close, 
>> will involved intermediary realities where Dr Katz wills survive with some 
>> illness due to the radio-activity. 
>> 
>> The cat experience always suggest a perfect kill, for the sake of the 
>> argument, but with Everett, or with Mechanism, that simply cannot make sense 
>> in the first person view. No 1p-diary can contain the statement “I did not 
>> survive”.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>>> George
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>> From: George Levy  <mailto:gl...@quantics.net>
>>>>> To: everything-list  
>>>>> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
>>>>> Sent: Mon, Dec 23, 2019 10:11 pm
>>>>> Subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi everyone
>>>>> I do not post often, but now is an opportune time to post on perpetual 
>>>>> motion machines and the second law.
>>>>> John Clark posted
>>>>> "The other type of Perpetual Motion Machine would violate the second law 
>>>>> of thermodynamics, you couldn't cr

Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

[George Levy]

 measures the 
temperature difference between the two ends of the bar. When the 
difference falls below a predetermined value, the thermometer 
triggers the explosive. Dr. Katz is willing to conduct experiments 
in this new chamber.


*a)*Dr. Katz measures the temperature difference of the bar. Again, 
following Tegmark’s cue, one may believe that the temperature 
difference never falls below the predetermined value.


*b)*Dr. Katz measures heat flow in a metal bar far away from the 
thermometer. Does he observe the same kind of anomaly as close to 
the thermometer? How does Katz explain what he measures?Does his 
explanation involve quantization of thermal energy?


*c)*What if he opens the door and steps outside the chamber? Does he 
observe any difference in heat flow?


I do not have any firm answers to any of these thought experiments - 
just guesses. Do you know the answers?




My fairly confident guess is that Dr. Katz is killed in the first 
experiment and never gets to the second one.


That’s why most friends of Dr Katz will say, and perceive.

Obviously, that is not what Dr Katz can ever feel, here or there, 
whichever computational history he might be living after the experiences.


Now, in between being far away from the radioactive source, or being 
close, will involved intermediary realities where Dr Katz wills 
survive with some illness due to the radio-activity.


The cat experience always suggest a perfect kill, for the sake of the 
argument, but with Everett, or with Mechanism, that simply cannot make 
sense in the first person view. No 1p-diary can contain the statement 
“I did not survive”.


Bruno






Brent


George




-Original Message-
From: George Levy 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Dec 23, 2019 10:11 pm
Subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

Hi everyone
I do not post often, but now is an opportune time to post on 
perpetual motion machines and the second law.

John Clark posted

"The other type of Perpetual Motion Machine would violate the
second law of thermodynamics, you couldn't create energy from
nothing but you could keep recycling the same energy and keep
extracting work out of it forever. That would violate not just
a law of physics but a law of logic too. If you could do that
then you could also make entropy decrease, but that would be
illogical because there is no getting around the fact that
there are just more ways something can be disorganized than
organized.

and quoting Hawking:
Disorder increases with time because we measure time in the 
direction in which disorder increases. — Stephen W. Hawking 
<https://todayinsci.com/H/Hawking_Stephen/HawkingStephen-Quotations.htm>

https://todayinsci.com/QuotationsCategories/A_Cat/ArrowOfTime-Quotations.htm
In other words systems are more likely to change from organized to 
disorganized.  There is an arrow of time and the second law as 
currently understood supervenes on it.
The problem with this approach is that relying on time asymmetry 
alone is narrow-focused and very much 19th century thinking. 
Physics of the 20th and 21st century taught us that time symmetry 
must be considered in combination with charge and parity. 
Therefore, to be accurate, one must consider the second law in the 
context of full-fledged CPT symmetry.

I just published a paper discussing this very topic.
Loschmidt’s Paradox, Extended to CPT Symmetry, Bypasses Second Law 
<https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=97267>
(The html version at the site does not render the drawings 
properly, you will need to download the pdf version to display the 
drawings)

The original Loschmidt's paradox states:

if all physical processes are truly microscopically
time-reversible, then any entropy increasing process is as
probable as a corresponding entropy decreasing process.
Therefore, according to physical laws the change in entropy
must be zero.

However, as proven by Boltzmann in his H-Theorem, entropy must 
increase with time.
This paper extends Loschmidt's paradox to CPT symmetry: if the laws 
of nature are truly CPT symmetrical and reversible, then a system 
could return to a previous state /even in the presence of an arrow 
of time,/ thereby restoring its entropy to its original value. This 
version of the paradox renders moot the arrow of time assumption 
and bypasses the H-Theorem.
The paper includes a theoretical discussion, simulation and 
experimental data.

George Levy
Irvine California

On 11/29/2019 6:56 AM, John Clark wrote:
All this talk about energy conservation has got me thinking about 
Perpetual Motion Machines, there are 2 types, both are impossible 
but one is more impossible than the other. One type would violate 
the known laws of physics, or maybe not; it seems to me that in an 
accelerating universe it would be possible, at least in theory, to 
extract work (force over a distance) from nothing and keep doing 
so forever.


The other type o

Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Eugene Wigner sat with Schrodinger's Cat in his lap, Wigner asks the Cat, "will 
you be my friend?" The Cat replies, "dead or alive, you'll always be my friend, 
Eugene." Suddenly, Ludwig Boltzmann pops back into existence and says to them, 
"You will always be on my mind!" 



-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Dec 31, 2019 10:20 am
Subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines



On 31 Dec 2019, at 05:02, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
 wrote:
 
 
 
 On 12/30/2019 5:44 PM, George Levy wrote:
  
 
On 12/29/2019 4:34 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
  
 
 George, Does your interpretation of Boltzmann's view on the conservation of 
energy invoke any observer like Boltzmann's Brain or Wigner's Friend? 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner%27s_friend You know, we need all the 
Friends we can get? ;-D
 
We are all Wigner’s friends, aren’t we? Except that Wigner still had some 
objectivism left in him, which led him to ask a friend to act as an 
intermediary between him and Schrodinger’s cat when he could have stepped into 
Schrodinger’s chamber and conducted the experiment himself.Writing the paper 
“Loschmidt’s paradox, extended to CPT symmetry…”  led me to question how 
natural laws such as forces, conservation, quantization and the second law 
emerge from Quantum Mechanics. The following thought experiments involve Dr. 
Katz, a very dear, close and nonfactual colleague of Schrodinger and Wigner. 
You could call him Schrodinger’s Katz. Dr. Katz has a PhD in physics. As a a 
pure subjectivist, he volunteers in experiments conducted in the famous 
Schrodinger’s chamber which contains a radium sample, near a Geiger counter, 
connected to a detonator set to trigger one ton of TNT (replacing, a la 
Tegmark, the original vial of cyanide envisaged by Schrodinger.)  These 
experiments involve the first and second laws of thermodynamics. I do not have 
any firm answer to any of these experiments, but I think they are worth sharing.
 1)  First Law - These experiments aim at determining whether the forces of 
nature (gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak forces) are constant 
from the point of view of an observer. a)  Dr. Katz measures the 
radioactivity of the radium sample near the Geiger counter. Does the 
measurement show that radium is not radioactive?b)  He then measures the 
radioactivity of a second radium sample far away from the counter. Is it 
radioactive? Is there a difference between the radioactivity of the two 
samples? Why or why not?c)   Dr. Katz may conclude that radium is simply 
not radioactive and, therefore, the radium-counter-explosive link is not 
operational. He turns off the inoperational counter and again measures the 
radioactivity of both radium samples (near and far from the counter) Is there 
any change in the measurements?d)  He then measures the radioactivity of a 
polonium sample far from the counter. What does he find?e)  Finally, he 
opens (from the inside) the door of the chamber, steps outside, and repeat 
radioactivity measurement on radium and polonium samples located outside. What 
does he find? The same as or different from the inside?How does Dr. Katz 
explain his findings? Are the (electromagnetic, strong, weak) forces the same 
inside and outside the chamber? Is energy conserved?
 
 2)  Second Law. (These experiments attempt to link quantization to the 
second law)Dr. Schrodinger replaces the radium sample and Geiger counter by a 
heat flow device comprised of a metal bar, hot at one end and cold at the 
other, and a differential thermometer that measures the temperature difference 
between the two ends of the bar. When the difference falls below a 
predetermined value, the thermometer triggers the explosive. Dr. Katz is 
willing to conduct experiments in this new chamber.a)  Dr. Katz measures 
the temperature difference of the bar. Again, following Tegmark’s cue, one may 
believe that the temperature difference never falls below the predetermined 
value. b)  Dr. Katz measures heat flow in a metal bar far away from the 
thermometer. Does he observe the same kind of anomaly as close to the 
thermometer?  How does Katz explain what he measures?  Does his explanation 
involve quantization of thermal energy?c)   What if he opens the door and 
steps outside the chamber? Does he observe any difference in heat flow?I do not 
have any firm answers to any of these thought experiments - just guesses. Do 
you know the answers?  
 My fairly confident guess is that Dr. Katz is killed in the first experiment 
and never gets to the second one.

That’s why most friends of Dr Katz will say, and perceive. 
Obviously, that is not what Dr Katz can ever feel, here or there, whichever 
computational history he might be living after the experiences. 
Now, in between being far away from the radioactive source, or being close, 
will involved intermediary realiti

Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

[Bruno Marchal]

guess is that Dr. Katz is killed in the first experiment 
> and never gets to the second one.

That’s why most friends of Dr Katz will say, and perceive. 

Obviously, that is not what Dr Katz can ever feel, here or there, whichever 
computational history he might be living after the experiences. 

Now, in between being far away from the radioactive source, or being close, 
will involved intermediary realities where Dr Katz wills survive with some 
illness due to the radio-activity. 

The cat experience always suggest a perfect kill, for the sake of the argument, 
but with Everett, or with Mechanism, that simply cannot make sense in the first 
person view. No 1p-diary can contain the statement “I did not survive”.

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
>> George
>> 
>>  
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: George Levy  <mailto:gl...@quantics.net>
>>> To: everything-list  
>>> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
>>> Sent: Mon, Dec 23, 2019 10:11 pm
>>> Subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines
>>> 
>>> Hi everyone
>>> I do not post often, but now is an opportune time to post on perpetual 
>>> motion machines and the second law.
>>> John Clark posted
>>> "The other type of Perpetual Motion Machine would violate the second law of 
>>> thermodynamics, you couldn't create energy from nothing but you could keep 
>>> recycling the same energy and keep extracting work out of it forever. That 
>>> would violate not just a law of physics but a law of logic too. If you 
>>> could do that then you could also make entropy decrease, but that would be 
>>> illogical because there is no getting around the fact that there are just 
>>> more ways something can be disorganized than organized.
>>> and quoting Hawking:
>>> Disorder increases with time because we measure time in the direction in 
>>> which disorder increases. — Stephen W. Hawking 
>>> <https://todayinsci.com/H/Hawking_Stephen/HawkingStephen-Quotations.htm>
>>> https://todayinsci.com/QuotationsCategories/A_Cat/ArrowOfTime-Quotations.htm
>>>  
>>> <https://todayinsci.com/QuotationsCategories/A_Cat/ArrowOfTime-Quotations.htm>In
>>>  other words systems are more likely to change from organized to 
>>> disorganized.  There is an arrow of time and the second law as currently 
>>> understood supervenes on it. 
>>> The problem with this approach is that relying on time asymmetry alone is 
>>> narrow-focused and very much 19th century thinking. Physics of the 20th and 
>>> 21st century taught us that time symmetry must be considered in combination 
>>> with charge and parity. Therefore, to be accurate, one must consider the 
>>> second law in the context of full-fledged CPT symmetry. 
>>> I just published a paper discussing this very topic.
>>> Loschmidt’s Paradox, Extended to CPT Symmetry, Bypasses Second Law 
>>> <https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=97267>
>>> (The html version at the site does not render the drawings properly, you 
>>> will need to download the pdf version to display the drawings)
>>> The original Loschmidt's paradox states:
>>> if all physical processes are truly microscopically time-reversible, then 
>>> any entropy increasing process is as probable as a corresponding entropy 
>>> decreasing process. Therefore, according to physical laws the change in 
>>> entropy must be zero. 
>>> However, as proven by Boltzmann in his H-Theorem, entropy must increase 
>>> with time.
>>> This paper extends Loschmidt's paradox to CPT symmetry: if the laws of 
>>> nature are truly CPT symmetrical and reversible, then a system could return 
>>> to a previous state even in the presence of an arrow of time, thereby 
>>> restoring its entropy to its original value. This version of the paradox 
>>> renders moot the arrow of time assumption and bypasses the H-Theorem.
>>> The paper includes a theoretical discussion, simulation and experimental 
>>> data.
>>> George Levy
>>> Irvine California
>>> 
>>> On 11/29/2019 6:56 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>>> All this talk about energy conservation has got me thinking about 
>>>> Perpetual Motion Machines, there are 2 types, both are impossible but one 
>>>> is more impossible than the other. One type would violate the known laws 
>>>> of physics, or maybe not; it seems to me that in an accelerating universe 
>>>> it would be possible, at least in theory, to extract work (force ov

Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 12/30/2019 5:44 PM, George Levy wrote:

On 12/29/2019 4:34 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

George,
Does your interpretation of Boltzmann's view on the conservation of 
energy invoke any observer like Boltzmann's Brain or Wigner's Friend?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner%27s_friend
You know, we need all the Friends we can get? ;-D


We are all Wigner’s friends, aren’t we?

Except that Wigner still had some objectivism left in him, which led 
him to ask a friend to act as an intermediary between him and 
Schrodinger’s cat when he could have stepped into Schrodinger’s 
chamber and conducted the experiment himself.


Writing the paper “Loschmidt’s paradox, extended to CPT symmetry…” led 
me to question how natural laws such as forces, conservation, 
quantization and the second law emerge from Quantum Mechanics. The 
following thought experiments involve Dr. Katz, a very dear, close and 
nonfactual colleague of Schrodinger and Wigner. You could call him 
Schrodinger’s Katz.


Dr. Katz has a PhD in physics. As a a pure subjectivist, he volunteers 
in experiments conducted in the famous Schrodinger’s chamber which 
contains a radium sample, near a Geiger counter, connected to a 
detonator set to trigger one ton of TNT (replacing, a la Tegmark, the 
original vial of cyanide envisaged by Schrodinger.)


These experiments involve the first and second laws of thermodynamics. 
I do not have any firm answer to any of these experiments, but I think 
they are worth sharing.


1)*First Law -* These experiments aim at determining whether the 
forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak 
forces) are constant from the point of view of an observer.


*a)*Dr. Katz measures the radioactivity of the radium sample near the 
Geiger counter. Does the measurement show that radium is /not 
radioactive/?


*b)*He then measures the radioactivity of a /second radium sample far 
away/ from the counter. Is it radioactive? Is there a difference 
between the radioactivity of the two samples? Why or why not?


*c)*Dr. Katz may conclude that radium is simply not radioactive and, 
therefore, the radium-counter-explosive link is not operational. He 
turns off the inoperational counter and again measures the 
radioactivity of both radium samples (near and far from the counter) 
Is there any change in the measurements?


*d)*He then measures the radioactivity of a polonium sample far from 
the counter. What does he find?


*e)*Finally, he opens (from the inside) the door of the chamber, steps 
outside, and repeat radioactivity measurement on radium and polonium 
samples located outside. What does he find? The same as or different 
from the inside?


How does Dr. Katz explain his findings? Are the (electromagnetic, 
strong, weak) forces the same inside and outside the chamber? Is 
energy conserved?


2)*Second Law.* (These experiments attempt to link quantization to the 
second law)


Dr. Schrodinger replaces the radium sample and Geiger counter by a 
heat flow device comprised of a metal bar, hot at one end and cold at 
the other, and a differential thermometer that measures the 
temperature difference between the two ends of the bar. When the 
difference falls below a predetermined value, the thermometer triggers 
the explosive. Dr. Katz is willing to conduct experiments in this new 
chamber.


*a)*Dr. Katz measures the temperature difference of the bar. Again, 
following Tegmark’s cue, one may believe that the temperature 
difference never falls below the predetermined value.


*b)*Dr. Katz measures heat flow in a metal bar far away from the 
thermometer. Does he observe the same kind of anomaly as close to the 
thermometer? How does Katz explain what he measures?Does his 
explanation involve quantization of thermal energy?


*c)*What if he opens the door and steps outside the chamber? Does he 
observe any difference in heat flow?


I do not have any firm answers to any of these thought experiments - 
just guesses. Do you know the answers?




My fairly confident guess is that Dr. Katz is killed in the first 
experiment and never gets to the second one.


Brent


George



-Original Message-
From: George Levy 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Dec 23, 2019 10:11 pm
Subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

Hi everyone
I do not post often, but now is an opportune time to post on 
perpetual motion machines and the second law.

John Clark posted

"The other type of Perpetual Motion Machine would violate the
second law of thermodynamics, you couldn't create energy from
nothing but you could keep recycling the same energy and keep
extracting work out of it forever. That would violate not just a
law of physics but a law of logic too. If you could do that then
you could also make entropy decrease, but that would be illogical
because there is no getting around the fact that there are just
more ways something can be disorganized than organized.

and quoting Ha

Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

[George Levy]

On 12/29/2019 4:34 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

George,
Does your interpretation of Boltzmann's view on the conservation of 
energy invoke any observer like Boltzmann's Brain or Wigner's Friend?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner%27s_friend
You know, we need all the Friends we can get? ;-D


We are all Wigner’s friends, aren’t we?

Except that Wigner still had some objectivism left in him, which led him 
to ask a friend to act as an intermediary between him and Schrodinger’s 
cat when he could have stepped into Schrodinger’s chamber and conducted 
the experiment himself.


Writing the paper “Loschmidt’s paradox, extended to CPT symmetry…” led 
me to question how natural laws such as forces, conservation, 
quantization and the second law emerge from Quantum Mechanics. The 
following thought experiments involve Dr. Katz, a very dear, close and 
nonfactual colleague of Schrodinger and Wigner. You could call him 
Schrodinger’s Katz.


Dr. Katz has a PhD in physics. As a a pure subjectivist, he volunteers 
in experiments conducted in the famous Schrodinger’s chamber which 
contains a radium sample, near a Geiger counter, connected to a 
detonator set to trigger one ton of TNT (replacing, a la Tegmark, the 
original vial of cyanide envisaged by Schrodinger.)


These experiments involve the first and second laws of thermodynamics. I 
do not have any firm answer to any of these experiments, but I think 
they are worth sharing.


1)*First Law -* These experiments aim at determining whether the forces 
of nature (gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak forces) are 
constant from the point of view of an observer.


*a)*Dr. Katz measures the radioactivity of the radium sample near the 
Geiger counter. Does the measurement show that radium is /not radioactive/?


*b)*He then measures the radioactivity of a /second radium sample far 
away/ from the counter. Is it radioactive? Is there a difference between 
the radioactivity of the two samples? Why or why not?


*c)*Dr. Katz may conclude that radium is simply not radioactive and, 
therefore, the radium-counter-explosive link is not operational. He 
turns off the inoperational counter and again measures the radioactivity 
of both radium samples (near and far from the counter) Is there any 
change in the measurements?


*d)*He then measures the radioactivity of a polonium sample far from the 
counter. What does he find?


*e)*Finally, he opens (from the inside) the door of the chamber, steps 
outside, and repeat radioactivity measurement on radium and polonium 
samples located outside. What does he find? The same as or different 
from the inside?


How does Dr. Katz explain his findings? Are the (electromagnetic, 
strong, weak) forces the same inside and outside the chamber? Is energy 
conserved?


2)*Second Law.* (These experiments attempt to link quantization to the 
second law)


Dr. Schrodinger replaces the radium sample and Geiger counter by a heat 
flow device comprised of a metal bar, hot at one end and cold at the 
other, and a differential thermometer that measures the temperature 
difference between the two ends of the bar. When the difference falls 
below a predetermined value, the thermometer triggers the explosive. Dr. 
Katz is willing to conduct experiments in this new chamber.


*a)*Dr. Katz measures the temperature difference of the bar. Again, 
following Tegmark’s cue, one may believe that the temperature difference 
never falls below the predetermined value.


*b)*Dr. Katz measures heat flow in a metal bar far away from the 
thermometer. Does he observe the same kind of anomaly as close to the 
thermometer? How does Katz explain what he measures?Does his explanation 
involve quantization of thermal energy?


*c)*What if he opens the door and steps outside the chamber? Does he 
observe any difference in heat flow?


I do not have any firm answers to any of these thought experiments - 
just guesses. Do you know the answers?


George



-Original Message-
From: George Levy 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Dec 23, 2019 10:11 pm
Subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

Hi everyone
I do not post often, but now is an opportune time to post on perpetual 
motion machines and the second law.

John Clark posted

"The other type of Perpetual Motion Machine would violate the
second law of thermodynamics, you couldn't create energy from
nothing but you could keep recycling the same energy and keep
extracting work out of it forever. That would violate not just a
law of physics but a law of logic too. If you could do that then
you could also make entropy decrease, but that would be illogical
because there is no getting around the fact that there are just
more ways something can be disorganized than organized.

and quoting Hawking:
Disorder increases with time because we measure time in the direction 
in which disorder increases. — Stephen W. Hawking 
<https://todayinsci.com/H/Hawking

Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

George,Does your interpretation of Boltzmann's view on the conservation of 
energy invoke any observer like Boltzmann's Brain or Wigner's 
Friend?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner%27s_friendYou know, we need all the 
Friends we can get? ;-D



-Original Message-
From: George Levy 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Dec 23, 2019 10:11 pm
Subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

   Hi everyone I do not post often, but now is an opportune time to post on 
perpetual motion machines and the second law.
  John Clark posted
  
 "The other type of Perpetual Motion Machine would violate the second law of 
thermodynamics, you couldn't create energy from nothing but you could keep 
recycling the same energy and keep extracting work out of it forever. That 
would violate not just a law of physics but a law of logic too. If you could do 
that then you could also make entropy decrease, but that would be illogical 
because there is no getting around the fact that there are just more ways 
something can be disorganized than organized.
  
 and quoting Hawking:
  Disorder increases with time because we measure time in the direction in 
which disorder increases. — Stephen W. Hawking 
https://todayinsci.com/QuotationsCategories/A_Cat/ArrowOfTime-Quotations.htm In 
other words systems are more likely to change from organized to disorganized.  
There is an arrow of time and the second law as currently understood supervenes 
on it. 
 The problem with this approach is that relying on time asymmetry alone is 
narrow-focused and very much 19th century thinking. Physics of the 20th and 
21st century taught us that time symmetry must be considered in combination 
with charge and parity. Therefore, to be accurate, one must consider the second 
law in the context of full-fledged CPT symmetry. 
  I just published a paper discussing this very topic. Loschmidt’s Paradox, 
Extended to CPT Symmetry, Bypasses Second Law  (The html version at the site 
does not render the drawings properly, you will need to download the pdf 
version to display the drawings)
  The original Loschmidt's paradox states: 
 if all physical processes are truly microscopically time-reversible, then any 
entropy increasing process is as probable as a corresponding entropy decreasing 
process. Therefore, according to physical laws the change in entropy must be 
zero. 
  
 However, as proven by Boltzmann in his H-Theorem, entropy must increase with 
time.
  This paper extends Loschmidt's paradox to CPT symmetry: if the laws of nature 
are truly CPT symmetrical and reversible, then a system could return to a 
previous state even in the presence of an arrow of time, thereby restoring its 
entropy to its original value. This version of the paradox renders moot the 
arrow of time assumption and bypasses the H-Theorem.
  The paper includes a theoretical discussion, simulation and experimental 
data. George Levy Irvine California 
  On 11/29/2019 6:56 AM, John Clark wrote:
  
  All this talk about energy conservation has got me thinking about Perpetual 
Motion Machines, there are 2 types, both are impossible but one is more 
impossible than the other. One type would violate the known laws of physics, or 
maybe not; it seems to me that in an accelerating universe it would be 
possible, at least in theory, to extract work (force over a distance) from 
nothing and keep doing so forever.  
  The other type of Perpetual Motion Machine would violate the second law of 
thermodynamics, you couldn't create energy from nothing but you could keep 
recycling the same energy and keep extracting work out of it forever. That 
would violate not just a law of physics but a law of logic too. If you could do 
that then you could also make entropy decrease, but that would be illogical 
because there is no getting around the fact that there are just more ways 
something can be disorganized than organized.
 
   John K Clark   -- 
 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2TGSjszwavfygMdKsqswq263PNvBKCS8b0ujeP-UZMLw%40mail.gmail.com.
 
 -- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dc42d570-5388-89aa-f199-763ea47eb27d%40quantics.net.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the w

Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

[Lawrence Crowell]

Quantum entropy is constant. Standard thermal entropy increases because it is 
difficult to localize all information about a system. If that were possible, 
say there are perfectly reflecting walls or the space were a torus the systems 
would exhibit a poincaré recurrence.

LC

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b8496a12-54d3-4ac8-8fd3-d83a516638e5%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

[George Levy]

Hi everyone

I do not post often, but now is an opportune time to post on perpetual 
motion machines and the second law.


John Clark posted

   "The other type of Perpetual Motion Machine would violate the second
   law of thermodynamics, you couldn't create energy from nothing but
   you could keep recycling the same energy and keep extracting work
   out of it forever. That would violate not just a law of physics but
   a law of logic too. If you could do that then you could also make
   entropy decrease, but that would be illogical because there is no
   getting around the fact that there are just more ways something can
   be disorganized than organized.

and quoting Hawking:

Disorder increases with time because we measure time in the direction in 
which disorder increases. — Stephen W. Hawking 
<https://todayinsci.com/H/Hawking_Stephen/HawkingStephen-Quotations.htm>


https://todayinsci.com/QuotationsCategories/A_Cat/ArrowOfTime-Quotations.htm

In other words systems are more likely to change from organized to 
disorganized.  There is an arrow of time and the second law as currently 
understood supervenes on it.


The problem with this approach is that relying on time asymmetry alone 
is narrow-focused and very much 19th century thinking. Physics of the 
20th and 21st century taught us that time symmetry must be considered in 
combination with charge and parity. Therefore, to be accurate, one must 
consider the second law in the context of full-fledged CPT symmetry.


I just published a paper discussing this very topic.

Loschmidt’s Paradox, Extended to CPT Symmetry, Bypasses Second Law 
<https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=97267>


(The html version at the site does not render the drawings properly, you 
will need to download the pdf version to display the drawings)


The original Loschmidt's paradox states:

   if all physical processes are truly microscopically time-reversible,
   then any entropy increasing process is as probable as a
   corresponding entropy decreasing process. Therefore, according to
   physical laws the change in entropy must be zero.

However, as proven by Boltzmann in his H-Theorem, entropy must increase 
with time.


This paper extends Loschmidt's paradox to CPT symmetry: if the laws of 
nature are truly CPT symmetrical and reversible, then a system could 
return to a previous state /even in the presence of an arrow of time,/ 
thereby restoring its entropy to its original value. This version of the 
paradox renders moot the arrow of time assumption and bypasses the 
H-Theorem.


The paper includes a theoretical discussion, simulation and experimental 
data.


George Levy

Irvine California

On 11/29/2019 6:56 AM, John Clark wrote:
All this talk about energy conservation has got me thinking about 
Perpetual Motion Machines, there are 2 types, both are impossible but 
one is more impossible than the other. One type would violate the 
known laws of physics, or maybe not; it seems to me that in an 
accelerating universe it would be possible, at least in theory, to 
extract work (force over a distance) from nothing and keep doing so 
forever.


The other type of Perpetual Motion Machine would violate the second 
law of thermodynamics, you couldn't create energy from nothing but you 
could keep recycling the same energy and keep extracting work out of 
it forever. That would violate not just a law of physics but a law of 
logic too. If you could do that then you could also make entropy 
decrease, but that would be illogical because there is no getting 
around the fact that there are just more ways something can be 
disorganized than organized.


John K Clark
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2TGSjszwavfygMdKsqswq263PNvBKCS8b0ujeP-UZMLw%40mail.gmail.com 
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2TGSjszwavfygMdKsqswq263PNvBKCS8b0ujeP-UZMLw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dc42d570-5388-89aa-f199-763ea47eb27d%40quantics.net.

Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, November 30, 2019 at 4:00:03 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/30/2019 1:04 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, November 30, 2019 at 2:49:15 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/29/2019 11:55 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 5:39:54 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/29/2019 2:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 4:11:04 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: 


 *> Hue Price argues, we need to overcome our natural tendency to think 
> about the past and the future differently. *


 Our natural tendency is to remember the past but not the future, so 
 Price asks us to change the way we think in a rather profound way. I can't 
 imagine how he expects us to do that.

 John K Clark

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As Price says, we do remember (or retrosee) the past and do not remember 
>>> (or foresee) the future. That's the way we are (in this universe, or part 
>>> of the universe). But does it have to be that way?
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes it does.  If we remember the future and learned the past then we'd 
>>> just swap words.  If we remembered the both we'd never learn anything, we'd 
>>> just exist.  If we didn't remember anything, either past of future, then we 
>>> wouldn't exist.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't thinks so.
>>
>> All of Price's "models" involve stochasticity. They are not deterministic.
>>
>>
>> I don't see how that counters my point.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> As in the case of the interrogators of *Ypiaria* in his book.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>> -
>>
>>
> "If we remembered the both we'd never learn anything, we'd just exist."
>
>
>
> See the Ypiaria chapter in Times Arrow,
>
>  https://books.google.com/books?id=B87QCwAAQBAJ=PA213=PA213 
> 
>
> Because the influences (backwards and forward updates of knowledge) *are 
> probabilistic*, we always will learn something new.
>
>
> It doesn't matter whether the events are random or not.  If we remember 
> the future we know what random values occurred.  They are only new to 
> someone who didn't know them.   Knowing them doesn't make them any less 
> random.
>
> Brent
>



I think Christopher Walken in *The Dead Zone* could get glimpses of the 
future, but they were stochastic. 

@philipthrift

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0e8b9e1e-276d-44b0-b3bd-54fbc75eb226%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/30/2019 1:04 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Saturday, November 30, 2019 at 2:49:15 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 11/29/2019 11:55 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 5:39:54 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 11/29/2019 2:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 4:11:04 PM UTC-6, John Clark
wrote:


/> Hue Price argues, we need to overcome our natural
tendency to think about the past and the future
differently. /


Our natural tendency is to remember the past but not the
future, so Price asks us to change the way we think in a
rather profound way. I can't imagine how he expects us
to do that.

John K Clark






As Price says, we do remember (or retrosee) the past and do
not remember (or foresee) the future. That's the way we are
(in this universe, or part of the universe). But does it
have to be that way?


Yes it does.  If we remember the future and learned the past
then we'd just swap words.  If we remembered the both we'd
never learn anything, we'd just exist.  If we didn't remember
anything, either past of future, then we wouldn't exist.

Brent




I don't thinks so.

All of Price's "models" involve stochasticity. They are not
deterministic.


I don't see how that counters my point.

Brent



As in the case of the interrogators of *Ypiaria* in his book.

@philipthrift
-



"If we remembered the both we'd never learn anything, we'd just exist."



See the Ypiaria chapter in Times Arrow,

https://books.google.com/books?id=B87QCwAAQBAJ=PA213=PA213 



Because the influences (backwards and forward updates of knowledge) 
*are probabilistic*, we always will learn something new.


It doesn't matter whether the events are random or not.  If we remember 
the future we know what random values occurred.  They are only new to 
someone who didn't know them.   Knowing them doesn't make them any less 
random.


Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6378f2eb-b48b-d7a3-76fe-a1dbd9c991ee%40verizon.net.

Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, November 30, 2019 at 2:49:15 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/29/2019 11:55 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 5:39:54 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/29/2019 2:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 4:11:04 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>> *> Hue Price argues, we need to overcome our natural tendency to think 
 about the past and the future differently. *
>>>
>>>
>>> Our natural tendency is to remember the past but not the future, so 
>>> Price asks us to change the way we think in a rather profound way. I can't 
>>> imagine how he expects us to do that.
>>>
>>> John K Clark
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> As Price says, we do remember (or retrosee) the past and do not remember 
>> (or foresee) the future. That's the way we are (in this universe, or part 
>> of the universe). But does it have to be that way?
>>
>>
>> Yes it does.  If we remember the future and learned the past then we'd 
>> just swap words.  If we remembered the both we'd never learn anything, we'd 
>> just exist.  If we didn't remember anything, either past of future, then we 
>> wouldn't exist.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
>
> I don't thinks so.
>
> All of Price's "models" involve stochasticity. They are not deterministic.
>
>
> I don't see how that counters my point.
>
> Brent
>
>
> As in the case of the interrogators of *Ypiaria* in his book.
>
> @philipthrift
> -
>
>
"If we remembered the both we'd never learn anything, we'd just exist."



See the Ypiaria chapter in Times Arrow,

 https://books.google.com/books?id=B87QCwAAQBAJ=PA213=PA213 


Because the influences (backwards and forward updates of knowledge) *are 
probabilistic*, we always will learn something new.

@philipthrift

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/91c3b9ad-9410-4978-b85e-2572cd79a072%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/29/2019 11:55 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 5:39:54 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 11/29/2019 2:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 4:11:04 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:


/> Hue Price argues, we need to overcome our natural
tendency to think about the past and the future
differently. /


Our natural tendency is to remember the past but not the
future, so Price asks us to change the way we think in a
rather profound way. I can't imagine how he expects us to do
that.

John K Clark






As Price says, we do remember (or retrosee) the past and do not
remember (or foresee) the future. That's the way we are (in this
universe, or part of the universe). But does it have to be that way?


Yes it does.  If we remember the future and learned the past then
we'd just swap words.  If we remembered the both we'd never learn
anything, we'd just exist.  If we didn't remember anything, either
past of future, then we wouldn't exist.

Brent




I don't thinks so.

All of Price's "models" involve stochasticity. They are not deterministic.


I don't see how that counters my point.

Brent



As in the case of the interrogators of *Ypiaria* in his book.

@philipthrift
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a77abaf3-0bdc-493b-8984-047d4a06d6db%40googlegroups.com 
.


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3c5af619-8090-8a04-e967-2a0b82684ecf%40verizon.net.

Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 5:39:54 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/29/2019 2:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 4:11:04 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: 
>>
>>
>> *> Hue Price argues, we need to overcome our natural tendency to think 
>>> about the past and the future differently. *
>>
>>
>> Our natural tendency is to remember the past but not the future, so Price 
>> asks us to change the way we think in a rather profound way. I can't 
>> imagine how he expects us to do that.
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> As Price says, we do remember (or retrosee) the past and do not remember 
> (or foresee) the future. That's the way we are (in this universe, or part 
> of the universe). But does it have to be that way?
>
>
> Yes it does.  If we remember the future and learned the past then we'd 
> just swap words.  If we remembered the both we'd never learn anything, we'd 
> just exist.  If we didn't remember anything, either past of future, then we 
> wouldn't exist.
>
> Brent
>



I don't thinks so.

All of Price's "models" involve stochasticity. They are not deterministic.

As in the case of the interrogators of *Ypiaria* in his book.

@philipthrift

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a77abaf3-0bdc-493b-8984-047d4a06d6db%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/29/2019 2:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 4:11:04 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:


/> Hue Price argues, we need to overcome our natural tendency
to think about the past and the future differently. /


Our natural tendency is to remember the past but not the future,
so Price asks us to change the way we think in a rather profound
way. I can't imagine how he expects us to do that.

John K Clark






As Price says, we do remember (or retrosee) the past and do not 
remember (or foresee) the future. That's the way we are (in this 
universe, or part of the universe). But does it have to be that way?


Yes it does.  If we remember the future and learned the past then we'd 
just swap words.  If we remembered the both we'd never learn anything, 
we'd just exist.  If we didn't remember anything, either past of future, 
then we wouldn't exist.


Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/73009e01-3744-83b4-2b15-b7cdd893a5d8%40verizon.net.

Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 4:11:04 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> *> Hue Price argues, we need to overcome our natural tendency to think 
>> about the past and the future differently. *
>
>
> Our natural tendency is to remember the past but not the future, so Price 
> asks us to change the way we think in a rather profound way. I can't 
> imagine how he expects us to do that.
>
> John K Clark
>





As Price says, we do remember (or retrosee) the past and do not remember 
(or foresee) the future. That's the way we are (in this universe, or part 
of the universe). But does it have to be that way?

@philipthrift

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/93be833d-f5b6-408c-ba8a-f636f2fa336f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

[John Clark]

> *> Hue Price argues, we need to overcome our natural tendency to think
> about the past and the future differently. *


Our natural tendency is to remember the past but not the future, so Price
asks us to change the way we think in a rather profound way. I can't
imagine how he expects us to do that.

John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3z0ip5A%3DimqF42QeVNczT8Emr2x3X%3D4mjAx0k7xo7TRw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

I'll take Price's advice and avoid the "double standard" by forgetting 
the past (in which Vic already wrote a book about retrocausation).


I wonder why philosophers are so fond of representing the future as 
fixed in a block universe model; instead of concluding that maybe the 
past is undetermined.


Brent

On 11/29/2019 10:23 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:



All of this is based on premises that are, basically. only mere 
presumptions. Nothing is settled truth here.


@philipthrift



Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point: New Directions for the Physics of 
Time 


Want to Read

Rate this book
1 of 5 stars 
2 
of 5 stars 
3 
of 5 stars 
4 
of 5 stars 
5 
of 5 stars 

Preview 




 Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time

by
Huw Price 
3.70  · Rating details 
 · 
132 ratings 
 · 
9 reviews 

Why is the future so different from the past? Why does the past affect 
the future and not the other way around? What does quantum mechanics 
really tell us about the world? In this important and accessible book, 
Huw Price throws fascinating new light on some of the great mysteries of 
modern physics, and connects them in a wholly original way. Price begins 
with the mystery of the arrow of time. Why, for example, does disorder 
always increase, as required by the second law of thermodynamics? Price 
shows that, for over a century, most physicists have thought about these 
problems the wrong way. Misled by the human perspective from within 
time, which distorts and exaggerates the differences between past and 
future, they have fallen victim to what Price calls the "double standard 
fallacy": proposed explanations of the difference between the past and 
the future turn out to rely on a difference which has been slipped in at 
the beginning, when the physicists themselves treat the past and future 
in different ways. To avoid this fallacy, Price argues, we need to 
overcome our natural tendency to think about the past and the future 
differently. We need to imagine a point outside time - an Archimedean 
"view from nowhen" - from which to observe time in an unbiased way. 
Price then turns to the greatest mystery of modern physics, the meaning 
of quantum theory. He argues that in missing the Archimedean viewpoint, 
modern physics has missed a radical and attractive solution to many of 
the apparent paradoxes of quantum physics. Many consequences of quantum 
theory appear counter-intuitive, such as Schrodinger's Cat, whose 
condition seems undetermined until observed, and Bell's Theorem, which 
suggests a spooky"nonlocality, " where events happening simultaneously 
in different places seem to affect each other directly. Price shows that 
these paradoxes can be avoided by allowing that at the quantum level the 
future does, indeed, affect the past. This demystifies nonlocality, ...






@philipthrift


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e3f3b3ec-3c5f-4326-9f63-c43e8c6a238c%40googlegroups.com 
.


I

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/41d88a9b-66bc-8d17-18fa-b864f578c4e1%40verizon.net.

Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 8:57:16 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> All this talk about energy conservation has got me thinking about 
> Perpetual Motion Machines, there are 2 types, both are impossible but one 
> is more impossible than the other. One type would violate the known laws of 
> physics, or maybe not; it seems to me that in an accelerating universe it 
> would be possible, at least in theory, to extract work (force over a 
> distance) from nothing and keep doing so forever. 
>
> The other type of Perpetual Motion Machine would violate the second law of 
> thermodynamics, you couldn't create energy from nothing but you could keep 
> recycling the same energy and keep extracting work out of it forever. That 
> would violate not just a law of physics but a law of logic too. If you 
> could do that then you could also make entropy decrease, but that would 
> be illogical because there is no getting around the fact that there are 
> just more ways something can be disorganized than organized.
>
> John K Clark
>




All of this is based on premises that are, basically. only mere 
presumptions. Nothing is settled truth here.

@philipthrift



[image: Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point: New Directions for the Physics 
of Time] 
<https://www.goodreads.com/book/photo/175546.Time_s_Arrow_and_Archimedes_Point>
Want to Read
Rate this book
1 of 5 stars 
<https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/175546.Time_s_Arrow_and_Archimedes_Point#>2
 
of 5 stars 
<https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/175546.Time_s_Arrow_and_Archimedes_Point#>3
 
of 5 stars 
<https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/175546.Time_s_Arrow_and_Archimedes_Point#>4
 
of 5 stars 
<https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/175546.Time_s_Arrow_and_Archimedes_Point#>5
 
of 5 stars 
<https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/175546.Time_s_Arrow_and_Archimedes_Point#>
Preview 
<https://read.amazon.com/nc/?kcrFree=only=x_gr_w_preview_sin_kcr-20=B004SL4KIU>
Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time
by 
Huw Price <https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/102431.Huw_Price>
 3.70  ·   Rating details 
<https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/175546.Time_s_Arrow_and_Archimedes_Point#>
 ·  132 ratings  
<https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/175546.Time_s_Arrow_and_Archimedes_Point#other_reviews>
 ·  9 reviews 
<https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/175546.Time_s_Arrow_and_Archimedes_Point#other_reviews>
Why is the future so different from the past? Why does the past affect the 
future and not the other way around? What does quantum mechanics really 
tell us about the world? In this important and accessible book, Huw Price 
throws fascinating new light on some of the great mysteries of modern 
physics, and connects them in a wholly original way. Price begins with the 
mystery of the arrow of time. Why, for example, does disorder always 
increase, as required by the second law of thermodynamics? Price shows 
that, for over a century, most physicists have thought about these problems 
the wrong way. Misled by the human perspective from within time, which 
distorts and exaggerates the differences between past and future, they have 
fallen victim to what Price calls the "double standard fallacy": proposed 
explanations of the difference between the past and the future turn out to 
rely on a difference which has been slipped in at the beginning, when the 
physicists themselves treat the past and future in different ways. To avoid 
this fallacy, Price argues, we need to overcome our natural tendency to 
think about the past and the future differently. We need to imagine a point 
outside time - an Archimedean "view from nowhen" - from which to observe 
time in an unbiased way. Price then turns to the greatest mystery of modern 
physics, the meaning of quantum theory. He argues that in missing the 
Archimedean viewpoint, modern physics has missed a radical and attractive 
solution to many of the apparent paradoxes of quantum physics. Many 
consequences of quantum theory appear counter-intuitive, such as 
Schrodinger's Cat, whose condition seems undetermined until observed, and 
Bell's Theorem, which suggests a spooky"nonlocality, " where events 
happening simultaneously in different places seem to affect each other 
directly. Price shows that these paradoxes can be avoided by allowing that 
at the quantum level the future does, indeed, affect the past. This 
demystifies nonlocality, ...





@philipthrift

 

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e3f3b3ec-3c5f-4326-9f63-c43e8c6a238c%40googlegroups.com.

Perpetual Motion Machines

[John Clark]

All this talk about energy conservation has got me thinking about Perpetual
Motion Machines, there are 2 types, both are impossible but one is more
impossible than the other. One type would violate the known laws of
physics, or maybe not; it seems to me that in an accelerating universe it
would be possible, at least in theory, to extract work (force over a
distance) from nothing and keep doing so forever.

The other type of Perpetual Motion Machine would violate the second law of
thermodynamics, you couldn't create energy from nothing but you could keep
recycling the same energy and keep extracting work out of it forever. That
would violate not just a law of physics but a law of logic too. If you
could do that then you could also make entropy decrease, but that would be
illogical because there is no getting around the fact that there are just
more ways something can be disorganized than organized.

John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2TGSjszwavfygMdKsqswq263PNvBKCS8b0ujeP-UZMLw%40mail.gmail.com.