The entropy of systems

Larry:
That's a very restrictive definition. Do you mean literally no forces of any kind and any strength?

GD: Yes

Larry:
An example of a system in static equilibrium would be someone sitting in a chair.

GD: Your definition does not take the energy state of the atom into consideration. (Even some of the most massive structures man has ever made, for example the pyramides, will only be a pile of sand over extremely long time.)

Your definition of equilibrium concerns "man and his objects".

My definition of equilibrium concerns nature and the reason for its motion.

<b>We are not talking about the same thing.</b>


Larry:
An example of a system in dynamic equilibrium would be two bodies orbiting their mutual center of mass.

GD: This is only an illusion. When the energy state of the atom varies with the acceleration of the electrons for example, some energy is irreversibly lost in the process and orbits also change. The same can be said concerning the orbital dynamics of our solar system.


The varying energy in a system, is the force which creates motion.
In other words, the force required to move an object is an energy depleting force. Motion in the universe is the "effect". This is because energy in a system varies with time.

The reason why the GD-equilibrium is so restrictive is because a force is possible only at the expense of energy.

Before we move on to the entropy definition, I would appreciate your thoughts on how motion is achieved in the universe.

I'm afraid you've lost me again GD. If I could take two neutrons say, and stop them dead relative to each other, I would say that there are no <b>net</b> forces acting. If I said there were no forces acting at all, then I would have to remove all forces around them i.e. all the forces in the universe.

Another point, is that a circular orbit has angular velocity. It doesn't radiate energy. If it has an angular acceleration it does. Now, if an electron changes its orbit, by absorbing a photon, it jumps. It goes from say, five miles an hour, to ten miles an hour but it never is going at anything in between, there's no seven miles an hour for instance[8D] Now, I would say that there's an acceleration happening but that it has to be faster than light[][8D]

Do you see why a simple kinetic explanation of entropy is fraught with problems. If it worked, there would be no universe, it would have burnt out in no time.

I suppose I'd better add to this. An electron jumps from five mph to ten mph at 20 billion times the speed of light. Shouldn't it then have a mass of twenty billion times infinity?

Yes, if you accept Einstein's take on things. But let's say that an electron at the speed of light, has its internal energy fall to zero, its mass never increases nor is there any time dilation. If an electron had a very fast decay rate, then at the speed of light this decay would cease because of lack of internal energy and not because of time stopping. Time is not a dimension.

Now, the point is that we've just introduced something that goes faster than light. So the internal energy of something travelling at light speed doesn't fall to zero. It can change therefore, the neutrino problem springs to mind here. Likewise the zpe problem. A faster than light graviton doesn't need to "borrow " energy from the future. It accelerates, then de accelerates, there's no seven mph because light is so much slower than it.

For a moment there it seemed like we were on the road to communicating. But I see that I was wrong. Do you realize how hard it is to follow you?

===

[LB] "An example of a system in static equilibrium would be someone sitting in a chair."

[GD] "Your definition does not ... "

That wasn't a definition, it was an example. (When someone intends to object to a definition, it is customary to quote the definition just before the objection. Quoting something else just before objecting to a definition suggests that you don't understand what you are doing. )

===

[GD] "Your definition of equilibrium ... My definition of equilibrium ... "

Are you still objecting to one of my examples of equilibrium, or is this now actually an objection to the dictionary definition of equilibrium?

I do not get to define the word equilibrium. You do not get to define the word equilibrium. The dictionary gets to do that for both of us. You do, however get to define the word GD-equilibrium. And I get to define the word LB-equilibrium. (If anyone cares, my definition for the word LB-equilibrium would probably be the same as the dictionary definition of equilibrium, if I had chosen to define the word LB-equilibrium. So far I have not.)

===

[GD] "Your definition of equilibrium concerns 'man and his objects'. My definition of equilibrium concerns nature and the reason for its motion."

There is nothing about the dictionary definition of equilibrium that restricts it to man made things. And there is nothing about your definition of GD-equilibrium that restricts it to natural things. So I'm left wondering what you could possibly mean.

You continue to use the word equilibrium when you mean GD-equilibrium.

===

[GD] "We are not talking about the same thing."

Remember the basics we have been trying to get you learn? Remember our warnings about communicating your ideas? As long as you are going to use standard words and symbols in non-standard ways you are always going to be " ... not talking about the same thing ... " as everyone else.

===

[GD] "Before we move on to the entropy definition ... "

Or do you mean the GD-entropy definition? Actually that won't be necessary, either way. I have satisfied my curiosity about your ideas.

Regards,
LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
<br />
Yes, if you accept Einstein's take on things. But let's say that an electron at the speed of light, has its internal energy fall to zero, its mass never increases ...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Assuming it is possible,how would you describe an atom for which its energy falls to zero?

1) Lets say it takes 30 billion years.

2) Lets say it takes a fraction of a second.

What could control the <b>rate</b> at which the atom's energy falls to zero?

Do you see any correlation between this theory and the missing mass of the universe that scientists are looking for?

Energy is conserved. The mass energy of an electron is half kinetic and half potential. Now, according to Einsien, the total energy of an object increases with velocity but this breaks the rules of a conservative field. if I apply a force to something, its potential energy falls and my potential energy increases, at the expense of my kinetic energy. I can write I = MC^2* sqrt(1 - V^2 / C^2) Where I is the internal energy of our electron in this case.

In an accelerating field the electron's internal energy is falling towards zero. the kinetic energy of the applied force has its kinetic energy falling toward zero. The result is that we have to pump more and more energy into accelerating our electron. There is no increase in mass involved.

It's legitimate to ask the question, "does the electron have a half life?" but here we would be talking of its total energy. I'm talking about conservation of kinetic and potential energy.