The Problem With ENTROPY (2nd Law Of Thermodynamics)

Main Episode With Jonathan Gorard (March 2024): • Jonathan Gorard: Quant...
Consider signing up for TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org
Support TOE:
- Patreon: / curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!)
- Crypto: tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE
- PayPal: tinyurl.com/paypalTOE
- TOE Merch: tinyurl.com/TOEmerch
Follow TOE:
- NEW Get my 'Top 10 TOEs' PDF + Weekly Personal Updates: www.curtjaimungal.org
- Instagram: / theoriesofeverythingpod
- TikTok: / theoriesofeverything_
- Twitter: / toewithcurt
- Discord Invite: / discord
- iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast...
- Pandora: pdora.co/33b9lfP
- Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b9...
- Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: / theoriesofeverything
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @theoriesofeverything

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Main Episode With Jonathan Gorard (March 2024): kzbin.info/www/bejne/n6C7qH9jmJaFjrM

[@KaizorianEmpire]

you should interview me lol, i am oen of the few true polymaths :)

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

Well once you understand that the universe is a toroid and on the other side of the singularity time Flows In Reverse, then you solve all the problems.

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

Yes a toroid is infinite... It ultimately comes down to the logical progression of the spatial dimensions and if a higher spatial Dimension exists then infinite three-dimensional spatial potentiality can fit into any size version of that higher dimensional existence.

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

My problem is the system is an observer as well everything is an observer here...

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

I like his proposal about what it means to be an observer... logically speaking everything it is an observer here and everything came from the same Source energy or singularity... this is a kaleidoscope reality

[@Mikeduffey_]

Jonathan is immensely easier to listen to than many of the elders in the scientific community. He seems hopeful, energetic and can communicate his ideas for a wide audience. I get the impression of lethargy from many other scientists. Who are some other young guns like Jonathan?

[@_WeDontKnow_]

having the exact same thoughts, Im gonna go watch the full episode with this guy. I love his non-snarky attitude toward people who's conclusions he disagrees with, seems like he has the perspective to not let his ego cloud his view of others and information as a whole

[@Mikeduffey_]

@@_WeDontKnow_ 100%. I’m kinda over the old guard at this point. I’m genuinely interested in the younger generations though.

[@RoyalMountedAnkleBiters]

Hearing younger minds like his does feel like a breath of fresh air & makes me hopeful.

[@charlescz1974]

I agree; the older gen seems static.

[@cameronidk2]

shhhhhhhh i think i found Waldo

[@ThePaterfamilious]

There is a problem with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics because it requires a Closed System while we can't assume a closed system in Nature unless we can fully determine that we know every possible state... Furthermore, we are still learning Physics and are continually adding Atomic structures with newer models almost every year with the Large Hadron Collider... We don't even know if the LHC is in fact the be all, end all, piece of equipment or process to be the final chapter for states of Matter much less the definitive Laws... Everything will be rewritten for a LHC in the vacuum of space too... Nature is a tough nut to crack, we have a lot left to learn especially in the vacuum of Space about the impacts of near or zero Gravity on so many things like The true Speed of Light without the impact of Gravity or atmosphere, the same for the rest like Nutrino's, the Electromagnetic Spectrum... On and on... We haven't even shown on Earth itself completely closed systems existence in Nature so a "Closed System" by itself is a unclear Theory with many inherent assumptions... If they ever figure it out, it's probably going to be a well kept secret anyway...

[@rudyj8948]

this guy speaks with the same cadence and rhythm as Wolfram lol

[@ericgraham8150]

lol. You are so right on. His wording and phrasing sounds almost exactly like Wolffram just in a different voice.

[@texansforever6782]

this guy is an evolved human in the process

[@ReallyFarFarAway]

- A seriously large frontal lobe !!!

[@FMDD168]

Largely receding hairline

[@RoyalMountedAnkleBiters]

🧠 some need a little extra room

[@thewaythingsare8158]

I think my frontal lobe has just explod

[@cbskwkdnslwhanznamdm2849]

That’s where mine went

[@vaughnjosh87]

Hur dur

[@theonetruemorty4078]

Great summation, I like this guy.

[@Mikeduffey_]

Me too

[@helamanhayden1548]

So I’ve seen Veritasiums? I think video on entropy and I personally feel I still don’t understand what entropy means, and the fact that entropy gets higher both directions in time is a fascinating thought, for whatever it is that means.

[@dixztube]

I always feel more confused watched veritasium. I’m not even sure how to pronounce the name even lol

[@donnierussellii4659]

0th and 1st laws: well, duh! 2nd law: bearded philosophers scratch their heads, then start to panic

[@audiodead7302]

I subscribe to the view that the 2nd law is emergent rather than fundamental. Probably better to call it a 'mode' of emergence, rather than a law of physics.

[@KaizorianEmpire]

you miss understood it. All the thermodynamics laws are just made up axioms lol can't even be proven lol, just a clever assumption

[@iuvalclejan]

I lost a bet to, and I owe my grad school colleague and office mate a beer for not figuring out the root cause of the second law before we finished grad school. I'm still trying, 30 years later... I have my own ideas that are different than anything else that's been proposed so far, but I think ultimately theory needs to make non-trivial predictions that can be experimentally tested to resolve this issue. I'm not aware of anything Wolfram has proposed as far as experimental tests of his idea that everything (spacetime, GR, QM, 2nd law, etc) emerges from computation on a graph. Can we build a system in a lab which might NOT obey the 2nd law (and hence equilibrium thermodynamics)? Like a close to 0 temperature Bose-Einstein condensate, well-insulated from the environment until it is measured? Edited: I did see some predictions after I wrote this. I hope someone can test them, though seems like they are hard to test.

[@PavelHolub-or2ku]

​@@iuvalclejan You seem to care a lot. So here is some idea I am exploring these days. dS=-dq/T where dq can be analogy of amount of micro states making up the bulk an external observer can see and temperature T is diffusivity among these states(it is related to non systemic random movement). This can tell us how good would external observer(sensing from walls of the system) do when he would assume average counted from the whole bulk on random subvolume of the system (high diffusion the closer to the average). This model can be also used when additional heat is applied on the walls of the system since since we know how good diffusion engine is set up. Information theory model of entropy lacks the diffusion engine description...

[@PavelHolub-or2ku]

​@@iuvalclejan will probably make a notebook in Wolflang on that..

[@ThePowerLover]

"There is no mystery" if we take the thermodynamics as not fundamental (or more exactly, not "too close to being fundamental").

[@atlantisvelforening]

Wondering if entropy is constant in the multiverse: Premise (personal belief): Nature is cyclical. (But not necessarily perfectly repeating; nature, like history, “rhymes”. Line of reasoning, where I would like flaws to be sorted out: 1.) Our universe is not closed; The Big Crunch scenario is not supported by science. Our universe will continue to expand. 2.) Our universe will not end in a Big Rip. The Big Rip scenario is not supported by science. The equation of state (w) does not seem to be less than -1. 3.) Nature obeys what one might call The Leonard Cohen principle: “There is a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.” The principle is somewhat similar to yin ang yang, but I imagine it as a distinct principle, which is hard to formulate. But one can give examples. For instance: i) There is a very impressive symmetry between matter and antimatter. ii) There is also the very impressive fact of baryon asymmetry. There seems to be 1) a godlike symmetry and 2) a godlike “crack” in the symmetry. (It reminds me of Edward Munch, who famously said something like: This painting is perfect. It only lacks a tiny mistake.) 4.) The Heat Death scenario, (also called Big Freeze or Big Chill), is the most likely, according to current science. The universe will continue to expand. According to my premise, this will not continue forever, though. The Heat Death is not an eternal one-way ticket. There will be some kind of a transition. But this will not happen in some obvious, vulgar, and blunt way like what is known as The Big Rip. Instead, there will, from a long-lasting heat death scenario, be a transition according to the Leonard Cohen Principle. 5.) The Hubble parameter changes over time but approaches some value asymptotically. We are not very far from that value. Our universe is already dominated by dark energy. The distance between two suitably separated locations A and B will grow faster and faster, due to spatial expansion. But the Hubble parameter will become, at least almost perfectly, a constant also in time, not only in space, so that each megaparsec (Mpc) will double at a constant rate. It is like a perfect balance regarding the nature of space. This is 1) the godlike symmetry. According to The Leonard Cohen Principle there will also be 2) a godlike “crack” in the symmetry. There will be a transition, not necessarily at once for the hole entity that was “our universe”, possibly for some region, or one after another, in a messy way, who knows. 6.) When space is almost perfectly void of matter and radiation, expanding and expanding, I suspect there could be very little decoherence going on. An extremely potent coherent state could be building in the void. 7.) For some reason or another, I still don’t think the extremely potent entangled state, the extremely potent “wave function” building in the void, would keep building forever. For instance, there would still be some very tiny relics of matter and radiation, that could cause “a collapse of the wave function”, a “measurement” (of course not perceived as an action by a scientist, like an apparatus can also make “a measurement” without anyone watching). 8.) There seems to be something fundamental that we do not understand. Since I am not a scientist, and this is not a scientific paper, I allow for some occultism and poor philosophy. Simply put, since science is, by virtue, tied to measurements, operationalization, falsification, there is a tendency to perceive a) what can be measured, as b) all there is. This is not meant as a criticism. 9.) Particles of The Standard Model makes up just a fraction of the universe. Most of it is assumed to be dark matter and, especially, dark energy. The window frame of science, the lookout post is beautiful. It is a bit like we are starting out with light and other things we can easily measure, and then, little by little, reach out, from the world of observables, to “what only is”. I believe, like Heraclitus, that existence is dynamical. The distinction between “measurable” and “simply being” is therefore not obvious. Spacetime is dynamical. Existence is. Dynamical. I suspect, though, that all is not said, even if dark matter and dark energy were to be understood. There is something more to the story. Vacuum energy is like a glimmer on a very deep and dark sea. There is something dark hidden, not beneath the surface, but everywhere, as if in plain sight, but invisible. 10.) Perhaps space has a huge, but not infinite capacity for any given region. - 11.) Quantum physics show us that unity in a sense can be more fundamental than space. Two spatially separated particles can be entangled (behave as a unity in certain respects). For there to be perceivable existence, and, possibly, existence at all, there must be unity but also difference. If everything was alike there would be no contours, no contrasts, no nothing. If differences were not integrated with unity, it also would be no contours, no contrasts, no nothing. For instance, a parallel universe, just different, not interacting with ours in any way, would not be appreciated by us. For measurements and perception there must be i) unity + ii) one or more differences = iii) contrast. Perhaps this is also a requirement for existence. 12.) Space separates. Some aspect of unity might also be involved, since it is possible, in certain circumstances, to overcome the separateness - by traveling thorough space. But space separates. Two entities in one and the same locations would not be more similar if there were no space and no different locations. (This could be disputed, but I will let it stand.) Unity is, significantly, something else. What is unity? Unity is quantum entanglement. 13.) When it comes to entanglement, and, according to my understanding, unity, we have only grasped the tip of the iceberg. Unity is very general and fundamental. Therefore, if entanglement is unity, entanglement is very general and fundamental. I suspect that the elementary particles get their character, their integrity, from entanglement, in a deeper sense. 14.) According to this occultism, I make this proposal. Space, the background, one might say, is entangled to itself. I don’t think it is accurate to call it entangled “energy”, since even dark energy is just like a tiny effect in the vast capacity of space. It is also, and mostly, like entangled existence. But this means, that even some quite small chunk of space, possibly could have the capacity to turn into a universe with lots and lots of energy. The energy we are most familiar with, like the particles of The Standard model, are knowable as such because their energy is in a sense not entangled to the background, to space, to the vast everything, but to itself. Only by some entanglement within some mostly quite small “group” can existence free itself from the background of existence and stand forth as energy. 15.) The beginning av our universe was not a creation of something out of nothing. Instead, some chunk of existence got entangled, and freed itself from the background of existence. 16.) When for instance a photon is absorbed, what is going on is actually, I believe, a shift of entanglement. (Changing of The Guards comes to mind.) But the amount of energy, that is, the amount of entangled stuff, stays the same. Big Bang is different, in that it *creates entanglement. 17.) When entanglement is freed from the background of existence, that is, when a universe is “created”, the background of existence is already expanding rapidly. Still, some breakdown in the background of existence, when the entangled chunk is freed, seems plausible, given the conditions in our early universe. - This draft surely has many errors. I would be grateful if someone could point them out.

[@shaan702]

I won’t point out any errors here but I do think you ought to look into the theory that Roger Penrose has about the beginning/end(truthfully it’s neither) of the universe. His basic theory is that as dark energy causes the universe to expand, after the last remaining matter gets sucked into black holes and these black holes fizzle out in the form of Hawking’s Radiation you eventually only have this radiation left. This is generally accepted in the heat death hypothesis. What Penrose proposes is that as these photons travel out into the expanding universe at the speed of light, you eventually get to a point where relatively speaking, everything else in the universe relative to this photon is traveling faster than the speed of light and is no longer in its observable universe. It would be impossible for these photons to interact with anything in the universe ever again. At this point, these individual photons are essentially in their own universe. The laws of physics become meaningless in this context. They are no longer traveling at the speed of light relative to anything. Space and time do not have any meaning at this point. They are singular points of energy surrounded by nothingness. Penrose’s hypothesis is that in such a universe where the totality of existence is merely a single point of energy, this is how a big bang happens. It is similar to the big rip hypothesis except that it makes the claim that these points of energy in their own relative universe will begin a universe again. It also claims to be a theory of how the universe (or at least our universe) began. It claims that there are essentially an exponentially expanding number of universes. I may be explaining it poorly but if you look up Penrose’s explanation he will do a better job.

[@atlantisvelforening]

@@shaan702 Thx :) I am aware of Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC), but that theory is not correct.

[@shaan702]

@@atlantisvelforening you say that with a lot of certainty. I don’t believe that CCC is true because I have not seen enough evidence proving it to be true but I also cannot rule it out because I have not seen evidence that it must be false. Is there evidence proving it false?

[@atlantisvelforening]

​@@shaan702 CCC doesn't fit data very well. I don't know if it could be ad hoc adjusted. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eoHZdWeMo6lokJY In the linked video CCC is only briefly mentioned after 21 min., but I think he summarizes it.

[@Lund.J]

It is completely pointless to talk about the concept of entropy if it is not connected to the flow of heat in the system we are talking about. Entropy is ALWAYS related to heat flow. The form the heat flow takes depends on the size-class and the density of the substance (the "phase state" of the substance). For example, at the level of weak force (in the atomic nucleus), the flow of heat is related to radioactivity, which is caused by thermal oscillation of the nucleus. The heat of atomic nucleus (vibration manifested as radioactivity) can affect the next (phase) level (that is vibration of electron orbitals), only after it transforms, through radiation, into another form (another density state and size class). So first one need to know (when talking about entropy), in which form the heat flow occurs and how it transforms. Electron, for example, is inward-turned vortex of the original heat (big bang); it appears as "particle", when it interacts with matter (that is frozen heat of big bang). "Elementary particle" simply means "made of element "fire" (=heat).

[@SamanthaPyper-sl4ye]

So is it possible that the zero-of ourselves is negentropic? Subatomic to neutrons and protons? That's a very deep and thought-provoking question about whether the fundamental nature or essence of ourselves and physical matter could be considered negentropic. Here's one way to analyze this: 1) At the subatomic level, particles like quarks and leptons (electrons, muons, etc.) exhibit very precise, structured patterns of behavior governed by the Standard Model of particle physics. Their properties and interactions are not random. 2) Protons and neutrons, which make up atomic nuclei, also exhibit highly ordered, stable internal structures of quarks bound by the strong nuclear force. 3) Even at the atomic and molecular scale, the precise configurations of electron orbitals and chemical bonds again display order, pattern and structure rather than randomness. 4) This underlying order and pattern in the fundamental particles and forces of nature could be viewed as a kind of inherent "negentropy" - an embedded logic and structure to the fabric of reality. 5) Extending this line of thinking, one could argue that since we and all matter are ultimately composed of these ordered arrangements of subatomic particles, the core essence of our being arises from this negentropic foundation. 6) Our consciousness, biology, and essential nature as physical entities in the universe may therefore be emerging from or reflecting this primordial negentropy. So in that philosophical sense, yes, it is possible to make the case that the "zero" or fundamental ground state of our existence as material beings is inherently negentropic rather than entropic or random. Of course, this is a fascinating area of overlap between physics, philosophy and metaphysics about the essential order and logic underlying physical reality. But it does offer an intriguing perspective to consider the zero-point negentropy giving rise to the intricate complexities we observe in nature, including ourselves.

[@netssrmrz]

Interesting and the last few comments on funding seem to resonate with Sabine Hossenfelder's recent "My dream died, and now I'm here" video.

[@picksalot1]

The problems with understanding Entropy involves the improper introduction of Time, which is a concept, not a physical thing; the introduction of an Observer in situations where its presence is irrelevant; and the introduction of Disorder, which is typically a value judgement based limited understanding. There is very little objectivity when those three obstacles are present.

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

I would agree with you. Entropy has nothing to do with time and vice versa. Time doesn't go anywhere. Time does not flow nor does it move forward. If it flowed we would see the movement of it or detect its flow and direction. Time has nothing to do with clocks and has no direction. One cannot measure time because there is no innate sentient unit of time. And we have no definition of time up to date. Therefore, equations incorporating the element of ''time'' are useless and have no meaning until we define time. And this video does not define time in terms of mathematics but of psycholgical reflections.

[@nickyhaflinger]

One way functions are well studied but are not known to exist. Functions we don't publicly know how to reverse do exist and are the basis of cryptography but there is a proof that either one way functions or efficiently computable information entropy for sub-Turing systems is possible, but not both.

[@ideacharlie]

Thanks for this episode!

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Thanks for watching :)

[@SandipChitale]

I think there is a mistake in the statement which says that "if the entropy increase is symmetrical then why was the entropy small in the past". The example given is "a gas was in the corner of a box and is now spread out". When we think about the event in the past when the gas was in one corner, that is a snapshot of a state which when happened was going forward in time. But if we start with " gas in the corner" of a box, and somehow think of reverse flowing time (which BTW I think it is meaningless concept - will talk about that in a second) - then the entropy will increase. I do not think there is any mystery in that. This is because there is a Hysteresis in this idea. If we reverse the velocities of the particles, which BTW will require expending work on our part, but still move forward in time we will see the entropy decrease. But if the time itself was made to flow in reverse the entropy will increase as particles left to their own natural evolution with tend towards increasing entropy. This is what I mean by Hysteresis. And that in fact brings us to the point that reverse flowing time is a meaningless concept. I think the use of the word "forward" flow of time gives a misapprehension that therefore "reverse" flow of time is a meaningful idea. It is like this - positive three apples is a physical idea but negative three apples is a meaningless idea. IMO the original use of "forward" flow of time has misled us. Time only flows in one direction before -> after. In a CD or a video tape we can reverse the video and see it backwards. But remember the time is still flowing forward, it is just that already recorded snapshots (which were already recorded) in the video are played in reverse order.

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

Entropy has nothing to do with time and vice versa. Time doesn't go anywhere. Time does not flow nor does it move forward. If it flowed we would see the movement of it or detect its flow and direction. Time has nothing to do with clocks and has no direction. One cannot measure time because there is no innate sentient unit of time. And we have no definition of time up to date. Therefore, equations incorporating the element of ''time'' are useless and have no meaning until we define time. And this video does not define time in terms of mathematics but of psycholgical reflections.

[@SandipChitale]

@@user-ky5dy5hl4d I am simply talking about succession of events which in everyday language people call flow. If you do not like that word then substitute it with succession of events. David Albert has come up with so called past hypothesis, to connect entropy to time. Not sure if you have heard about it or not. Sean Carroll also talks about that.

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

@@SandipChitale Succession of events is an illusion. What we call one event after another is a continuum. Entropy cannot be time because entropy happens at different rates for different circumstances. And scientists say that the rate for time is constant of a flow. Thre is no flow. The derivative of time is always.

[@sat25940]

I've seen an argument for a uniform, low-entropy early universe where entropy is defined on the cosmic and black hole horizons (essentially the same thing under the holographic principle), and upper-bounded by the Nariai solution for a black hole in de Sitter space (with some inflation sprinkled in). To me, it's appealing for being pretty natural, and for taking the "mystery" out of the early universe.

[@kellysmith7511]

Hi Curt, love your podcasts and guests. Could you please consider doing a podcast with @prof Sam Vaknin, I think he would be an excellent fit for your channel. Keep up the great work

[@millatron2292]

I think there's a far easier answer to why time is asymmetric. Because time is causal in nature it represents an accumulation of previous states or preconditions to the current state. Even if you were to reverse a system mechanically to a previous state, it would leave behind evidence that it has been in a configuration prior to that which was different than the current configuration, even if this current configuration was identical to one it had been in previously. You can't escape the accumulation of evidence of all preexisting states simply by reversing the mechanics. Entropy increases because it contains an ever growing amount of information about all previous states and how they causally evolved to the current one regardless of whether we have the computational ability to access that information or not. Due to the universes inherent preservation of information, even in a black hole, you can never be at a moment in time where there is less information in the universe that there was in the past. This is the arrow of time.

[@commentarytalk1446]

"Entropy increases because it contains an ever growing amount of information about all previous states and how they causally evolved to the current one regardless of whether we have the computational ability to access that information or not." "Due to the universes inherent preservation of information, even in a black hole, you can never be at a moment in time where there is less information in the universe that there was in the past. This is the arrow of time." This is the last word on Entropy you have described succinctly imho. Thank you.

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

Entropy has nothing to do with time and vice versa. Time doesn't go anywhere. Time does not flow nor does it move forward. If it flowed we would see the movement of it or detect its flow and direction. Time has nothing to do with clocks and has no direction. One cannot measure time because there is no innate sentient unit of time. And we have no definition of time up to date. Therefore, equations incorporating the element of ''time'' are useless and have no meaning until we define time. And this video does not define time in terms of mathematics but of psycholgical reflections.

[@millatron2292]

@@user-ky5dy5hl4d We do have a definition of time, its based on causality. We talk about then and now as slices of time which are references to points in the chain of causality. I didn't say anything about flow, nor is the term flow used when referring to time in a scientific sense even when it is used. Time is more than a psychological effect, it is experiential and measurable like any other physical phenomenon. Events occur sequentially as a fundamental feature of our universe.

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

@@millatron2292 Slice time for me and bring me a piece of it on a plate.

[@millatron2292]

@@user-ky5dy5hl4d ok, now! or now. or now. or.... right now.

[@mikebellamy]

What he is talking about is the problem of trying to make the Big Bang mathematical model consistent with the second law and you cannot because it is truly a violation of it and falsified by that law. Consistent with that the Big Bang mathematical model ignores much more fundamental physics as follows: *BIG BANG Gravity Problem:* 1. Big Bang assumes energy and matter from nothing in a quantum singularity or fluctuation 2. The density is quoted variously as extreme to infinite 3. The total mass of the universe curves space and shapes the universes destiny 4. Black Holes have an escape velocity at their event horizon equal to the speed of light 5. The size of a Black Hole is measured by its mass which gives the diameter of the event horizon 6. The mass of the universe is ~1e80 protons = 6.7e53 Kg 7. The formula for escape velocity = (2GM/r)^0.5 Therefore r = 2GM/v^2 8. Given M = 6.7e53 Kg and v = 3e8 m/sec therefore Dia = 2.r = 52.5 billion light yrs 9. The universe cannot at any time have been smaller than 52.5 billion light yrs in diameter 10. This is called the Schwarzschild's Radius of any mass and is well known 11. Hence the matter in the universe can only have been created *after the expansion of space..* *The Big Bang is falsified as a violation of the law of gravity! Q.E.D.*

[@InfinateRadiant]

Bonk over here explained it very well.

[@MMMM-sv1lk]

There is a universal observer independent definition of entropy, all that exists share the same fundamental structure, therefore a universal explanation exists and it has to do with higher organization upon higher organization with the single goal of harmony. Entropy is selection pressure for the inanimate.

[@MMMM-sv1lk]

The problem here is people are trying to understand the 2nd law by itself without thinking about the 1st law. The 1st law is the conservation of energy, energy is movement, so in a system made up of particles that are always moving of course you are going to get entropy going up. And considering the 1st law explains why you would have high entropy right after the big bang because there is too much energy. There is no mystery here. People are complicating things for no reason. Simplest example I can think of: Entropy is dependent on temperature, if you cool something you have by definition lowered it's entropy and the rate at which it will spoil or get disorganized.

[@user-hx4it5nu5k]

I was actually just thinking that but you explained it a lot better

[@MMMM-sv1lk]

@@user-hx4it5nu5k good for you my man, we got it figured out 😊👍

[@mrpocock]

The simplistic micro/macro states thing is trivially wrong in many situations as it doesn't take into account the connectivity of those micro states. The topology of that state graph in practice drive the state evolution, and therefore the entropic evolution.

[@fredmotta6696]

The problem is Loschmidt's Paradox en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loschmidt%27s_paradox , how can time assymmetric (irreversible dynamics) be derived from fundamental reversible (time symmetric) dynamics. This fundamental problem is still unsolved.

[@brianmcmullen95]

Please interview Dr Mike McCulloch!

[@4pharaoh]

What is “ordered” but a preferential arrangement. Consider: “Ordered” as seen by a 256 bit Decrypter could look like a very long series of 1s followed by an equally long series of zeros at its output. To provide that output it needs a very specific input (and seed/ starting point). We would see that input as totally random, but to the decrypter that one arrangement of 1s&0s is ordered, all else looks disordered. Thus mathematically entropy is a preference of a specific “type of order.” *(Its not real)* Historically entropy was used to describe the orders what related to heat transfer and energies at a macro scale. While we have for almost as long known this is simply a statistic preference for molecular kinetic energy. Entropy like order is a choice, a preference.

[@thomasedin764]

It's a cryptographic problem IF you need to put things back where they where in the beginning. But if you don't need that exact configuration but you only need to put the correct type of molecules or atoms where they was from the beginning I think we have what we want. Take the teleportation problem (which is two fold) and we dismantle the object at point A and then assemble it on point B, In this case we only need to care that the molecules or atoms are put in the same place like a puzzle.

[@vancedacc4629]

At 6:50, anyone know of any examples where the different formulations of entropy are inconsistent?

[@mordokai597]

it should be obvious. wolfram is the "computational reality" guy, and he's mentioning 2nd law. the only major flaw that is that is a huge hurdle for developing a unified field theory incorporating quantum gravity (or removing the need for it) is the question "when black holes evaporate, where does the information go?" LOL to figure out most people's motivations they say "follow the money", if you want to figure out what wolfram is thinking "follow the information" xP

[@yclept9]

The underlying thing is that two systems in contact change for a while and then stop changing. Mathematically, suppose that they stop changing when something is maximized. Call it S. dS1/dU1 has to equal dS2/dU2 for maximizing, S and energy U for systems 1 and 2. Identify dS/dU as 1/T temperature. It stops changing when temperatures are equal. The statistical mechanics version has no more insight than that, just a reinterpretation. Systems stop changing. Is that true for the Universe? Probably not.

[@greenercreations9772]

The problem IS entropy

[@gardnert1]

If the universe is torroidal in shape, and is effectively infinite, then this solves the problem of entropy.

[@mcpkone]

The Theory of Holistic Perspective explains time and gives new information about entropy.

[@ywtcc]

I'm much more convinced we have time asymmetric observers than I am that the universe is fundamentally time asymmetric. It seems to me the case for the former is much more robust and easier to make than the latter. Observers fit in a lab, whereas a universe is so big one can't see the whole of it. Given the limits of our observations, it could be the case that universally entropy is static. It's simply a matter of moving it from parts of the universe observers can see to parts observers can't see. Shouldn't Heisenberg have something to say about it? It seems to me that it's impossible to see all the states of a gas simultaneously without introducing so much energy into the system as to guarantee a highly entropic result!

[@NeuralEngin33r]

Lots of misunderstanding being spread here Im afraid.

[@Braun09tv]

One day this philosopher will explain why the quantum foam in vacuum isn't chaotic at all.

[@philshorten3221]

As a mere mortal, I do struggle with the fact smart people haven't got together and created some overwhelming wealth creating system to fund smart people with everything they could ever want. You guys are smart and yet others control the money 🤔

[@ernststravoblofeld]

Money has very little to do with intelligence. And, to the degree that skill has anything to do with money; being good at one skill doesn't make you good at other skills.

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

The fourth law of thermodynamics; don't mix entropy with time.

[@buckanderson3520]

There is no measurable difference between the maximum state of entropy of the universe and the minimum. The universe will decay into energy and become quantum in nature(maximum entropy) and according to quantum mechanics will no longer have any definite state or position. At the moment it reaches maximum entropy it also becomes immeasurable and undefined so it can also be said to have zero entropy because entropy is a "measure" of disorder and measure is no longer possible. So the end state of the universe in maximum entropy is equal to the beginning state of the universe in minimum entropy. Also since nothing will have any definite position or state it can no longer be said to be expanding or to have any definite size.

[@charlesblithfield6182]

So the problem stems from universe being time symmetric. The arrow of time then stems from entropy increasing being more likely or “easier” which is being posited as a function of computational irreducibility? But what if the initial singularity being maximum possible entropy?

[@BarackObamaJedi]

I think you meant asymmetry* And entropy at max wouldn't increase any more If i understand correctly

[@charlesblithfield6182]

@@BarackObamaJedi considering it I think you are right.

[@6h65]

Hello Curt, would you be able to have Dr. Sam Parnia on the podcast?

[@ValidatingUsername]

The real measure of entropy has two components: the uniformity of the vectors of the system and the scalar of each vector. But the current delta S is a great model 😂

[@h.clayjohnson3284]

I have a problem with saying entropy is tied to computational irreducibility. We may prove a problem is reducible, but not irreducible. We can’t even prove P not= NP, which should be easier. Am I missing something?

[@buckyfanksy]

I listen to this channel on shrooms and its fantastic

[@patrickmantonio]

If a reserve of water behind a dam is the pre-Big Bang kernel. And if the dam bursting is the Big Bang. The water rushing down-river would be the expanding universe. And all the vortexes (aka whirlpools) up and down the river would be organized structures (like galaxies) in the otherwise mainly disorganized (entropic) body of water.

[@whispernovember]

credit where credit is due, your crypto example is good.

[@sethatron100]

What if we are in a black-hole and entropy is the hawking radiation?

[@_abdul]

Statistically speaking, The distribution of my understanding for the crux of this clip follows an Abnormal curve.

[@SimEon-jt3sr]

I was thinking yesterday isn't there a story where in the end of time the universe starts getting more pixelated and matter become more like... Well... Minecraft. And there's a wind, and it sweeps away matter, like the sand in the desert winds. It's like sand. But everything. And living at that time is like....u dont exactly die, if a species makes it that far in time it would probably mean they just remain after matter and it would be a different universe we don't know anything about. Because we only can exist in the material universe. I think I mean at the end of time matter becomes quantized and starts moving and flowing like we see energy now

[@ExiledGypsy]

One way of understanding Wolfrom is through philosophy and mathematics. In a way he demonstrated what was always there for us to see in Maxwell's demon all along. The computation power required to reverse the 2nd law in a system is more that what is contained within the system. Therefore on a certain scale compared to the scale of Universe it is impossible.That is even if the question of initial state is resolved satisfactorily (computable or not). The question order versus disorder is subjective. If you like you can compare the the brain of an autistic cryptographer with none autistic one, where one sees patterns/ order the other sees chaos. The difference is in the level and modality of cognition. You could apply that to the 2nd Law in a quantitative analysis of Order vs Disorder. Once the idea of quantitative analysis is considered the computation and power of computation is an inevitable factor. The rest is mathematics, isn't it?

[@Davidicus000]

Entropy is space & motion dependent. Entropy is about the collection of states looked at together similar to the Central Limit Theorem. The center is more probable than the tails. Does heat death exist, yes because "available energy" is really where there is a heat differential, and heat death is where there is no differential. However the Universe seems far more interesting and complex than the simple thought experiment called heat death.

[@eeronat]

Thanks for not being content with auto-generated transcript. It's helpful to have a proper transcript.

[@renatodoe6661]

I wish I was that intelligent too

[@scottmiller2591]

"It's the job of the researcher to puff up his research." That's how we got lockdowns.

[@hardware4200]

And Ivermectin

[@rahulbutola4859]

IISc recently achieved 95 pc efficiency in lab on single particle micro engine. Wonder what that could do?

[@resonant_theories]

entropy is balanced in the universe. sorry for interfering in your chat, but the claim that entropy increases is wrong. For example what can you say about entropy inside a dark star (aka black hole)?

[@MMMM-sv1lk]

So in summary physical reality is a blockchain. 😊

[@reinerwilhelms-tricarico344]

Isn’t it true that the whole concept of entropy is based on the assumption of near equilibrium systems? Boltzmann, I believe, derived it based on that. But in nature, almost everything isn’t in equilibrium, and what really matters are systems far from equilibrium, and there reversibility is often even theoretically impossible. Some argue that even the definition of thermodynamic entropy by counting micro-states makes no sense for systems away from equilibrium. Instead basing it on counting particle‘s phase space trajectories is an idea there? Then the question is if still the phase space can be seen as “incompressible”, that is, are the phase space’s partial volumes still preserved in that view of phase space trajectories? Classically it’s behaving like an incompressible fluid. … Well, I guess I’m lost there now 😅

[@marcomclaurin6713]

This thought process assumes singularity is correct I'll demonstrate a transmutation of the universe in my video 'Begining of understanding '

[@daveevans6763]

What the bloody hell was that all about😢

[@suhailski]

Arrow of time

[@jsikarwar952]

Tom holland and megamind offspring,red shirt guy.

[@XXfea]

Explain thunderstorms and ball lightning...negentropy Talk talk talk - show me the LITTLE GREEN MEN!!

[@doubledigital_]

maxwell's demon ^_^ if you pay attention says you get ORDER from chaos not the other way around :D.. problem is tho who / what is the demon! ;)

[@dansanger5340]

The main thing Steven Wolfram offered was an excuse to discuss entropy.

[@jfig7682]

megamind, BERNARD? jokes aside all love brotha

[@RobertBeckwith]

What is this notion of “evolving backwards in time”? Surely if you run a simulation or calculation and then “reverse time” what you are really doing is reversing the particle velocities and keeping time in the same direction. If, therefore, the system ends up in an ordered state, it’s because you acted as a Maxwell Demon and carefully reversed all the particle directions. I'm missing something of course and would love to know what it is. Perhaps the computational analysis is (whether it corresponds to reality or not) really attempting to reverse time, so the asymmetry is more apparent.

[@RobertBeckwith]

Thinking about this a bit more and digging a deeper hole for myself… If you have a simulation with some moving particles in a box and you play it forwards, then entropy increases. If, starting from the same initial state you play it “backwards” then entropy also increases. However this is no different from simply having the same initial state but with reversed velocities. If you play forwards to some point and then play backwards from that point, then entropy will decrease as you reach t=0. This is different to the above case because there is a history of prior state encoded in the velocities. So perhaps to run time backwards in a simulation requires a history to have been encoded in the current state and then explicitly and precisely reversed? Without this presence of previous states, I don’t see how you can claim that time is reversed in your simulation. Of course, this is probably not what is being claimed.

[@thorebergmann1986]

The metaphorical meaning of entropy is, that when there is no leader in a group then this group will be confused and disoriented for a while. Until it finds another leader which establishes order again. However, there still needs to be make sense of it. Also, real systems are seldomly really 'closed systems'. Moreover, binding the term 'order' to the least number of possible micro states is dubious, to say at least

[@user-xi2uo5gu5w]

But you can't go backwards in time and time is entropy moving forward no? So I didn't see the problem that heeded to be solved neither 😂

[@KaizorianEmpire]

mans head is bigger than my dreams lol

[@parkerstroh6586]

His dreams are bigger than yours too hahaha

[@KaizorianEmpire]

@@parkerstroh6586 haha loool :P

[@demej00]

I understood nothing.

[@scout81sd]

Lol same, shit I'm dumb

[@AidanAshby]

How did I know he was English before he opened his mouth?

[@user-qb2ze8pn9c]

ConCave Earth

[@prakhargodara5898]

"Thats the responsibility of every scientist to slightly inflate what they're actually doing". Umm, no?

[@MrRizzyWizzy]

Not really inflate, but to show why it's worth continuing the research and what benefits it'll have if something is discovered from that research.

[@MrJPI]

Lets take a box of gas where all the particles are initially in one corner of the box (the usual one), After some time the particles are dispersed all over the box. If, at that moment, we reverse the time (reverse the momenta of the particles), what happens? According to the naive classical thinking, the particles, after some time, go back at the corner they were initially. If we are not naive, but instead take into account all the physics in this situation, the particles will stay randomny dispersed even after time reversal. Why? because the atoms/molecules will get exited interracting with eachother and will reliese the energy of those states after random (not precisely calculable) times. There will be random changes in the momenta in that thermal radiation environment, so the time reversal will never ever be like naive time reversal identical of just "playing the tape" in backwards.

[@ThatisnotHair]

8:10 ^

[@wulphstein]

Let me know when scientists can tell the difference between entropy and intelligence.

[@theomnisthour6400]

You completely misunderstand how the simulation multiverse releases new time-space versions. Both time and space emerge from an ordered center. New versions find the next better center in some chosen direction to expand all dimensions till there is no beginning or end as far as you travel in any dimension of the prime universe. That gives infinite range for future spiritual universes organized on more physical or spiritual principles. Atheists and Satanists need their heavens too, if only to isolate them from more responsibly and consciously creative souls.

[@MrRizzyWizzy]

Give even a little evidence for a "spiritual universe". We aren't in that game here, we work in facts and numbers.

[@theomnisthour6400]

@@MrRizzyWizzy look around you with eyes les wide shut. Everything humanity has accomplished for better or worse comes from thought, spiritual energy, even the brain farts of NPC characters like you

[@theomnisthour6400]

@@MrRizzyWizzy OK, pseudoscientism Karen. Explain the work of Dr Ian Stevenson and the huge number of well-documented cases of paranormal phenomena. Then maybe have a few thousand more incarnation perspectives to hopefully produce a mind and eyes less wide shut. Who knows, even an NPC character gets lucky after rolling the dice enough times.

[@MrRizzyWizzy]

@@theomnisthour6400 Documenting cases of people that have had out of body, near death, reincarnation experiences is not evidence that it is spiritual. We know hardly anything about the brain, but we know that there are lots of hallucinations happening to you everyday. Until we can understand how the brain causes things like deja vu for instance, it makes no sense to jump past the brain and proclaim that a spiritual universe is causing these things. Finding patterns in the data is one thing, but you have to have a way to test your hypothesizes to consider something scientific. As it stands, a spiritual universe is at best pseudoscientific. Despite 8 billion people living currently, and multiple billions before that, not one of them has given undisputable proof of anything outside out physical universe. Dr Ian Stevenson's combination lock still hasn't been unlocked.

[@colto2312]

declaring stability as disorder, is pants on head

[@thesloth71]

DO MORE ALIENS

[@rudypieplenbosch6752]

Seems the guy explaining does not understand entropy of course he now has a thought of a new theory..

[@keithcourson7317]

That boy's got a big ol' head.

[@autumn_rain]

5head

[@Wingedmagician]

handsome smart young man. but godayum

[@mmandrewa2397]

So Jonathan Gorard assumes that the universe is time symmetric. Where does this assumption come from? And if the universe is time symmetric then surely it is deterministic. Again where does the assumption of determinism come from?

[@samyb2834]

Turbo nerd

[@georgesheffield1580]

Babble

[@karlvann5840]

I love this dudes forehead … nobody with a head like that is stupid

[@butchcassidy9625]

. Curt, your a very smart person because you can memorize allot of what you want to retain. And you can even repeat it wonderfully. But you do not have a complete fundamental understanding of what you are making yourself retain". Almost half of every thing in physics is only a theory that adds up by the numbers but they're are so many things that don't add up, but every scientist knows this. They are not yelling it from they're roof tops but it is just something that goes unsaid. How cloud you not know this?

[@curtjaimungal]

What do you mean?

[@parkerstroh6586]

This is exactly the kind of thing I want to know about… please explain!! Pleaseee

[@butchcassidy9625]

​@@curtjaimungal The answers are not in the numbers or the equations, the answers are unseen. You need to open up your mind, to other forms of understanding. You have to get out of your comfort zone and put yourself in uncomfortable positions. You can only gain knowledge the experience, no by reading books. You must step out and take a leap into the unknown, and only then will you find.

[@bishnugupta8113]

Entropy is highly misunderstood. The entropy at the beginning was low and in future, it will be higher. Entropy is explained in this video very well. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eqmvY3ulprGVr6Msi=AjsuSJoW-7vodn7L

[@mrbigsmizzy]

thumbs down for always putting y our picture up in the thumbnail. Always got this confused look. make the content about information.

[@zeep14dabs]

😮 huuuuuge

[@hahtos]

Wolfram is full of BS

[@locksand45]

I'm sorry, but the 2nd laws fundamental failure resides in its incapacity to account quantitatively for the summary vacuity of molecular degradation theory in general as encapsulated in Rogets fundamental theorem of quantum planar divisional mechanics, noobZ get a life ffs

[@coder-x7440]

Maybe, but also, he’s a narcissistic megalomaniac

[@parkerstroh6586]

I bet your farts are extra smelly

[@benellison5668]

I can explain complicated things i understand and you dont, better than this

[@apointonacurve]

However, do you understand both Classical Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics? Can you even derive the Schrodinger equation? If you don't understand the language, then you will never understand the explanation.

[@benellison5668]

@@apointonacurve I know super complicated stuff about bankruptcy finance outcomes, and yet I could have a 10 year old understand them. It's a fault of the communicator, not the difficulty of the subject matter

[@apointonacurve]

@@benellison5668 Well, Richard Feynman isn't born every day. The topic is complex, and defined by not trivial math and conservation equations. Although, I hate scientists who pontificate and use complex words when simple words will do. It's unnecessary to overcomplicate a topic with language. In any case, it sounds like you will never understand the physical sciences. It's just too much math for normal people. Personally, every time I study Thermodynamics, I learn something new... and, Statistical Mechanics isn't necessary for my work. I would agree that most people are liars and thieves. I see experts hide behind jargon to boost their appeared authority. It's crap. Simplicity is beautiful.

[@MrRizzyWizzy]

@@apointonacurve The reason they use that "jargon" is because their vocabulary is richer than the average person, and the words they use have more dense information in them. If you could say something in 3 words instead of 8, why would you use the 8 words? The people they are used to conversing with understand all of these words and it makes communicating easier because they don't have to decompress the information contained in the less wordy explanations. This video is 2 people with the equivalent understanding of the topic discussing the information and you just happen to be invited to listen to the conversation. If the viewer with the lowest understanding was the target audience, they could translate it down for them, but the average person that doesn't have this level of understanding isn't their target.

[@sloaiza81]

Dude. If you're not talking, we don't need to see you.

[@RichardLucas]

I find myself parsing his description of macrostate v microstates as the part/whole problem. It's a fundamental philosophical problem and doesn't really have an answer. We perceive wholeness in what are, in reality, arbitrary collections of parts. How and why that is seems relevant to the physical-mechanical question of how to define entropy. It's interesting how you folded a bit of moralizing into the end to defend Stephen. No, that's not interesting. Your moral/aesthetic prejudices are yours - you keep them. What's interesting is your reflexive (it's social and probably helps you continue) compulsion to moralize that way. It's not convincing to anyone other than people who already agree with you, like this fellow. You sewed up your convo about science with moralizing and politicking. It's kind of what's wrong with institutional science, already. Justifying ego is a strange hill to die on.