Thermodynamics and The Universe

You and Rick are simply ignoring my points.

Buzsaw, I think you confuse "illogical" with "counterintuitive". There is nothing illogical about QM. And that Feynman quote that you like to cite doesn't mean what you think it means. Quantum mechanics is one of the most developed and best supported theories that we have. There are probably tens of thousands of researchers who use QM on a regular basis. It's not just some pure theoretical mind games. If you do anything in chemistry or materials science or electronics, you'll be running into QM all the time. Even I have had brushes with it, although my field is pretty far removed.

And there is a reason for this, Buz.To most of us QM is as undecipherable as trying to understand women. But there are those around who do understand, if not all, great swaths of QM, though I doubt if even they can understand women.The difference between QM and your religious speculations (they do not qualify as hypotheses) is that QM is mathematically consistent and grounded in First Principles (if you don’t know what this means then look it up) while your religious speculations are grounded in nothing but your emotions.The two do not compare.

Do you realise that calculating the entropy of the Earth and the Entropy of Venus would be an almost impossible task. Entropy is related to how many different microstates an object could have, while still maintaining the same macrostate. For both Earth and Venus, let's say, the amount of macroscopically similar microstates would be equally enormous in both cases.
The surface of the Earth probably would have a lower entropy than surfaces on other bodies throughout the rest of the Sol system. However I don't know how much lower. It'd be a very difficult thing to guess.
The main point is nobody has ever measured or even guessed at the total entropy of the Earth.However QM doesn't try to explain how Earth has lower surface entropy than other bodies in the Sol System. I'm not being purposefully difficult, but I still don't understand why your focusing on QM here. QM deals with dynamics below the 10^-10 meters mark (roughly, there are superconductors e.t.c.).
Anybody who'd try to use QM to explain Earth's lower surface entropy.....Well to be honest, I wouldn't know where they'd start, what they'd do, or why they'd be doing it.Can I ask why you think QM purports to explain Earth's Entropy?
Did some news article say it?
(Sorry, you have to understand using QM to explain Earth's entropy would be bizarre. What kind of Byzantine wavefunction would handle that?)Edited by Son Goku, : More precise.

And you're ignoring mine. When are you going to present the classical, non-quantum explanation for the Two Slit experiment?

Your "points" for the most part are based on ignorance and fuelled, as far as I can tell, by a desire to label science you don't understand as an illogical anti-theistic construct created by a worldwide academic conspiracy!My knowledge of physics is rudimentry at best, so I choose to read and learn. Why not do the same?

But QM also obfuscates the subjective so that mysterious interpretations relate to the paintings. Comparing science to decreased entropy applies QM to the earth's quantity and explains the solar system. Analogous beasts irrelevantly beautify thermodynamics and give QM judgmental looks.--Percy

I do that also. I read you folks and google info. My messages here are about things I've learned relative to thermodynamics and QM, et al. I would hope that you would focus on addressing/debating/discussing my positions rather than chiding me as a dumb ass. I told you up front that I was speaking from a layman's logical outlook.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

I would agree that it explains the solar system. However, I see the explanation/s it offers as mysterious, obfuscative and controversial to such a degree that the more objective and subjective observation relative to thermodynamics and the solar system is undermined. I guess I wouldn't have such a problem with this if the disparity of the quantity of decreased entropy weren't so great comparing earth with the rest of the solar system. I mean, it's not just that the planet must be precisely where it is in orbit pattern but that the moon and atmosphere must be just so also, not to mention all the intricate design we observe on the planet itself, all of which must be accounted for. Imo, you can apply QM or any other science method to the problem and it's not reconciled.I could reconcile a small degree of decreased entropy over other bodies as being natural, but on earth, imo, there just too much to justify strictly natural and random processes void of ID. The more QMish (buzword) science gets, the more illogical science becomes throwng the proverbial baby (logic) out with the bathwater (QM).

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Fair enough, but as a fellow layman I would say that your outlook on science does not strike me as particularly logical!

quote:

---

And that Feynman quote that you like to cite doesn't mean what you think it mean

---

Just to clarify this, since buz keeps throwing around this quote as if it supports his position,: Feynman wasn't saying that quantum mechanics wasn't the most accurate description of the world we have.When he said he doesn't understand it, he was referring to the fact that he doesn't understand how the world can be that way (not that it is that way). He was expressing a sense of awe and confusion at the way the world is. This awe and confusion wasn't rooted in the fact that we don't understand; it's rooted in the fact that we understand it all too well.As crash keeps saying, explain the two slits experiments without referring to some sort of quantum mechanical interpretation. The experiment and results are so simple that the explanation will have to be counterintuitive.

Hello Buz,As SophistiCat already hinted at, I think that your problem lies in a conflation of common sense and logic. They are not the same. For example, our common sense tells us that the sun orbits the earth. After all, we can see it happening everyday. But if we apply rigorous logic to all the observed facts, then we must conclude that the earth revolves around its axis, which creates the illusion of the sun orbiting the earth.The following anecdote about the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein nicely illustrates my point. He once asked a friend: "Why do people always say that it was natural for Man to assume that the sun went round the Earth, rather than that the Earth was rotating?" His friend replied: "Well, obviously because it just looked as if the sun was going round the Earth." Wittgenstein then asked: "Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as if the Earth was rotating?"You might want to read it again - I know I did - to fully appreciate the profound insight Wittgenstein expressed here. I hope it shows that common sense is not always guaranteed to tell us how things really work.On top of that, your present problems with all things quantum probably stem from the fact that our common sense notions of the world are derived from our experiences with it on our own, intermediate, scale. Quantum physics, on the other hand, deals with things on an unimaginably small scale, while Einstein's relativity theory deals with things on an equally unimaginably large scale. Things simply do not behave in the same way in these three realms - the very small, the intermediate, and the very large.Elementary particles, often depicted as tiny billiard balls, do not behave like real billiard balls, and billiard balls themselves do not behave like stars and planets. Each category has its own particulars as far as physics is concerned, and we are simply most used to the way billiard balls behave. Both quantum and relativistic effects are unobservable in this middle range, so if we base our understanding of either quantum mechanics or Big Bang cosmology on our experience with billiard balls, we are bound to go wrong somewhere.I hope this helps.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

What do you think Entropy is? Also where are the figures for the entropy coming from?Remember S = k ln(Omega), which would be almost incalcuable for a planet.Also what has QM got to do with calculating the classical entropy (i.e. entropy in the way Boltzmann percieved it) of a classical object?You seem to be saying that QM is used to airbrush out Earth's lower entropy, however I still don't see why.

But QM precisely solves the problems you describe. Wherever a planet or atmosphere appears to be, wherever they appear to have been, whatever the indications for entropy, QM and especially retro-causality tell us with precision that patterned reconciliations account for methods and problematic intricacies. Ilogical babies and their bathwater QM-ify proverbial science.--Percy

Hi Parasomnium. Haven't talked to you for a spell.1. How then does QM explain the Solar System, or do you think that it does?2. I don't see the sun/earth analogy as analogous to my points regarding QM and Thermodynamics. I'm not trying to deny the science of QM. I'm saying that since it does hone in on small things mysteriously, obfuscatively and controversly, applying it to things like the solar system undermines and obfuscates the logics of objective observatonal less mysterious conclusions pertaining to large things like the earth/solar system thermodynamically. We observe this huge amount of decreased entropy and order on earth compared to precious little elsewhere.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28