@mahtpav6389 No every position is possible. Some are just very unlikely.

"Liquid” indeed has more entropy compared to “crystalline”. That is also what I am saying in the video! The reason why it has a higher entropy is because more of the possible microstates fall into the “liquid” category compared to the “crystalline” category.

This is a great comment. It's as if the video is asserting a "Bell's Theorem" approach to reality based on ignorance rather than on the non-existence of unmeasurable properties. Quantum mechanics is confusing enough. Let's not complicate entropy more than necessary by needlessly incorporating the mindset of the observer. Again, great comment, and I agree completely.

The reason why macroscopically processes evolve towards high entropy is just simple statistics. If for example one macrostate comprises 1000000 microstates and another just 2, it is simply very likely to end up in one of the 1000000 microstates of the first macrostate. It is the same reason why we usually don’t win in a lottery, and sure, it doesn’t matter if you are watching the process or not. It is not exactly a steam engine, but I encourage you to watch my video about the entropy driven car: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hoG6dqCgo9amfJo

@ That's a great video! Thank you for posting. You've gained a new subscriber! I hope your job search goes well.

No actually I wanted to make a short and then it turned out longer than expected 😄

@@MarbleScience a simple idea for 5 seconds -> 4 minute video :D

I would like to answer with a paragraph of E.T. Jaynes 1996 paper about the gibbs pradox: "There is a school of thought which militantly rejects all attempts to point out the close relation between entropy and information, claiming that such considerations have nothing to do with energy; or even that they would make entropy "subjective" and it could therefore could have nothing to do with experimental facts at all. We would observe, however, that the number of fish that you can catch is an "objective experimental fact"; yet it depends on how much "subjective" information you have about the behavior of fish. If one is to condemn things that depend on human information, on the grounds that they are "subjective", it seems to us that one must condemn all science and all education; for in those fields, human information is all we have. We should rather condemn this misuse of the terms "subjective" and "objective", which are descriptive adjectives, not epithets. Science does indeed seek to describe what is "objectively real"; but our hypotheses about that will have no testable consequences unless it can also describe what human observers can see and know. It seems to us that this lesson should have been learned rather well from relativity theory. The amount of useful work that we can extract from any system depends - obviously and necessarily - on how much "subjective" information we have about its microstate, because that tells us which interactions will extract energy and which will not; this is not a paradox, but a platitude. If the entropy we ascribe to a macrostate did not represent some kind of human information about the underlying microstates, it could not perform its thermodynamic function of determining the amount of work that can be extracted reproducibly from that macrostate."

@@MarbleScience Jaynes makes a great point about entropy being linked to information, and that perspective is useful in some contexts. But in thermodynamics, entropy is still an objective property of physical systems. A gas expanding into a vacuum increases in entropy, no matter what we know about it. The connection to information is real, but entropy isn’t just about our knowledge-it also reflects the physical reality of systems.

Well the thing is, we can never measure absolute entropy. It’s always about a change in entropy. We don’t know how much entropy a piece of wood has, but if we burn it, its entropy increases.

I wouldn't say that things in the universe necessarily have infinitely high entropy, but we will probably never know their absolute entropy values. That's why outside of toy models, we only work with entropy differences not with absolute values.

Put 99 green balls and 1 blue ball into an urn, shake, and draw one. You don't 100% know what colour you are going to get, but that's not the same as not knowing anything about the colour you are going to get.

Ok, so entropy is subjective then😅

That's interesting because in the last round I actually did not put a marble under any cup, exactly because I wanted to avoid the loud rolling noise 😄

A measurement can decrease entropy in one part, but to get the complete picture, we also have to consider the measurement device itself. If the measurement apparatus in itself increases entropy more (e.g. powered by electricity) than entropy is reduced by the result of the measurement, the overall entropy change could still be positive. E.g. Landauer and Penrose also argue along these lines in the context of Maxwell's demon.

Good look with your exam :)

Why not also multiply with the number of atoms? Or with pi? Or any other constant?

I really don't like this way to put it. I know it's popular, but it doesn't make any sense. We could do the same weird thing with any other quantity that stays constant. For example the number of atoms stays constant, but now we could come along and say we are consuming valuable atoms and convert them into less valuable atoms. I would say that's a strange way to put it. It's still the same nitrogen atoms, when wind is converted into heat. Now you say a valuable form of energy is converted into a less valuable form. I would say that's a strange way to put it. It is still the same kinetic energy of atoms, when wind is converted into heat. Why not just acknowledge that the only difference is an entropic one? Why do people always project that difference into the realm of energy, where it does not belong?

I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying... Botzmanns entropy formulat S= klnΩ is kompatible with Shanons entropy formula used in information theory. Shanons formula turns into boltzmanns formula if we make the assumption that all states are equally likely. What exactly do you think is not compatible?

Wind farms generate electricity and produce profits

I use Blender for my animations :)