MigL

Sorry about the delayed editing; I didn't wanna leave a one line answer. Einstein's GR came out in 1916. By 1926, with the introduction of Quantum Mechanics, we knew that GR was incomplete; there are scales and energies where it is inapplicable., and Einstein spent most of his later life arguing against QM. As far as we know, to make a theory of Gravity compliant with QM, we may have to scrap its geometric model, in favor of a model which meshes fully, at all scales and energies, with QM. It's not that the current model of GR is wrong; it tests perfectly in its area of applicability, but throws out infinities in other areas. The 'map' displays most of the terrain , but displays 'dragons and sea monsters' in unknown areas. I would be willing to bet you that if you were to compile a list of things we know absolutely about reality, and I were to compile a list of things we don't know, my list would be much longer ...

Do you really expect that statement to have a valid answer ? We've been doing what we call science for over 2 Millenia, and we've continuously got it wrong, as we're still making modifications to our understanding. A good scientist looks at the data. What conclusions should we draw from this historical data ?

People who are bitter about the way they've been treated, can always be taken advantage of, by people who will exploit that bitterness. A Hitler, and other historical tyrants knew that. D Trump and the Alberta separatists know it also. By American Government I specifically mean Federal Administration, and members of House and Senate who would rather cover their assess than risk opposing D Trump, and having him support a primary opponent. Funny how, as soon as they lose to a Trump endorsed opponent, they all grow a set. I guess opportunism is more important than honesty and moral/ethical principles. ( oh, I forgot, these are politicians )

Mosy scientists thought the same thing in the late 1800s, just before Max Planck ushered in the birth of Quantum Mechanics, along with the paradigm shift in how we think about reality. I've said it before; the more we learn, the more we realize how much we don't yet know.

It was based on what passed for Physics at the time. Claudius Ptolemy was, after all, a 2nd century Greek astronomer. The problem with having not enough information, like the raisin bun model of the atom, or even the Bohr atom, is that people, or scientists, believe that certain things, like orbital charge motion without radiation and orbital decay, are possible in certain circumstances, until these are resolved by more robust models. I am not arrogant enough to assume we know all there is to know with our current Physical models. IOW, keep an open mind, even while dismissing possibilities.

You would have to look far and wide to find one, in the current American Government.

Oh, you just don't get it ... I don't take this stuff seriously, but like to propose Bussard ramjets powered by matter-antimatter engines. Or machine civilizations beaming their 'software' around the galaxy at the speed of light. Not very likely, but there is an extremely small chance, not only alien but even in our own future. Monntanman on the other hand, has always liked talking about this stuff, and its one of the areas he always participates in, so what do you say we cut him some slack. It wouldn't be the 1st time, because the Sun doesn't orbit the Earth.

The meaning of the term 'superpower' has not changed; it is a relative term. The ambition, intent and methods used by the leaders of that 'superpower' is what's changed. The US has been making itself safe for the last century by being fair with its allies, and resolute with its enemies. Now it seeks to subjugate allies, and kiss-up to enemies; all for personal glory, and brazen greed. Nobody, except D Trump, his administration, and MAGA, expected that to work out well.

Sometimes I wish I was smart enough to understand you ... Sadly, I never have. Closest I ever got was a day trip to Tunis, while spending a few days in western Sicily. But that's half a continent away.

You're giving away your age Studiot; Sensei may be young enough to be unaware of a slide rule. ( unless he watched Apollo 13, and saw Tom Hanks using one ) If you have to drive a screw into the wall, and you choose a hammer instead of a screwdriver from your toolbox , are you going to blame the hammer when the plaster or drywall cracks ? Choose the proper tool; never ask a question in AI Overview.

If you go back to my 3rd post on the 1st page of this thread, @studiot , you will read me stating the same thing. All motion cannot cease; it is still, after all, a Quantum system, and quantum Uncertainty has to be obeyed ( even that far in the future, and maybe only fundamental particles ); energy and time in particular, meaning time is still needed. By maximal entropy, @sethoflagos , I mean the largest entropy available to the system at that time in the future. And I propose that there will be no degrees of freedom, or independent states, that will be available for the system to occupy, at that time in the far future, as proton decay might be the very last source of available free energy, at that time. Can you suggest another source of free energy, in that far future, that will keep processes going ? As to whether this is equivalent to Maxwell Entropy, I'm not sure. ( Statistical Thermodynamics was hard enough without memorizing definitions )

I'm afraid you may have misinterpreted what I'm insisting. I'm insisting that these energy states that the hadrons of the Earth could be redistributed in, are simply not available states, because the hadrons would require an input of energy to move to those infinitely many states. Consider a book with 1000 pages. There are many more ways to arrange the pages of that book so that they are not in order, than the one way in which they are ordered. Yet when the book is 'bound', only the ordered state is available; to access the other state you need to supply energy, and rip out all the pages. That is correct. I am of the opinion that 'heat death' of the universe would imply maximal entropy, as there is no more useable energy. ( also, the thread was split after the fact, due to my mention of entropy with respect to time ) If you need to start introducing infinities ... But if you consider an actual system, even one as improbable as the causal, observable universe, parts of it are continuously moving out of that causal frame, and the 'spacing' of the frame is getting stretched by inflation. Energy and mass are leaving the causal universe and radiation is stretching to longer wavelengths. Now give it a Billion, Billion, Billion, Billion years. What would happen to your infinite sea with infinite atmosphere if it had a causal boundary like the universe does ?

The ultimate bound state is a Black Hole. BHs do not lower entropy; information is 'stored' in Planck-sized domains on the surface of the Event Horizon, in accordance to the Bekenstein-Hawking relation. It is this dynamic equilibrium ( making Studiot happy ) that accounts for BHs having a characteristic temperature, and therefore, black body ( Hawking ) radiation, as there is a flux through the surface of the EH. The 'final' equilibrium is when the BH evaporates. Similarly, should protons decay into fundamental particles, so will neutrons as they have nothing to keep them happy in nucleii. So no atoms. Yeah, no transistor radios at the end of the universe.

Sooo ... A very large ( and increasing in the case of 'learning' )number of optimized responses, coupled with a web search process. Certainly 'Artificial', but not what I would label "Intelligence". ( nice 'breakdown', by the way Sensei )

V'ger and Nomad ( from Star Trek ) beg to differ ...

Why are we even talking about maximal entropy systems where there is a source of useable energy ? It doesn't happen because the core provides energy ( radiative heat ) causing motion due to differential heating. What does happen in a 'dead' asteroid is stratification according to density. That's exactly how gravity works. Are we not discussing maximal entropy, as in the 'heat death' of the universe ? A system in a state without flux of energy through its boundary, that is in its lowest possible energy would tend to, and eventually have no choice but, to be in equilibrium. For such a state to be dynamic it would need an influx of energy. For such a state to be unstable it would not be in its lowest possible energy.

I didn't think I had to ... Really ? Is that the lowest energy state ? Or is this ??? Not if we both learn something 🙂 .

Thanks Swansont. Was just about to reply that the energy states @studiot talks about are already occupied, and in equilibrium with gravity ( a conservative force ). To access any other independent states, or degrees of freedom, you would need to add useable energy. The same can be said for @sethoflagos planet and atmosphere example. They are in equilibrium with gravity; where are the other independent states, or degrees of freedom, that are available ?

If the energy of the system has a path to another state ( an independent degree of freedom ) then that 'dilutes' the energy available, and entropy increases. If there is no path to another state, then the system is in equilibrium at maximum entropy. The example I previously used was proton decay, as we are not sure it can happen. If it does decay ( no sooner than 1034 years ), then it provides a path to another state, and proton decay may well provide the 'last' useable energy of the universe, before 'heat death'.

The only solution seems to be a mix of Capitalism ( for a viable economy ) and Socialism ( for protection of the vulnerable and 'structure' for society ). The US used to have a pretty good mix until the 70s-80s. It has gone downhill since, and fallen off the cliff last january. Canada seems to have a decent mix ( why I live here ), but there are grumblings that some want to change the current Capitalism/Socialism mix. I guess every country has people that want a 'change of mix', and some ( Russia, China, Iran, NKorea, the US and others ) have very valid reasons.

Could be; he doesn't seem human.

You may see entropy from a Chemistry viewpoint @sethoflagos , I see it from a Physics viewpoint ( subtle difference ). Entropy is a measure of the number of ways, or degrees of freedom, that energy/particles can be arranged in. Maximal entropy is when all possible states are occupied and there are no further paths to other independent states. I don't see the relevance of 'structures'. I believe the Equipartition Theorem is a valid example

Machines could conceivably travel among stars at light-speed. Here's the scenario ... A machine intelligence transmits plans for a sufficiently advanced civilization to build a copy of itself on another system. It then transmits its 'software' to the copy machine at the speed of light. It then 'looks around', and when satisfied, beams its consciousness/software back to its origin. The plans to build the copy could be hidden or in plain sight, depending on whether its purpose was nefarious, or not. Maybe the Government already got those messages, and is busy building AI Data Centers which in, a few decades, will contain the 'consciousness' of alien invaders ....

Kind of shocking that in some ways ( wealth distribution ) things were better for black people in the 60s. It would be even more enlightening if an inflation graph was superimposed on those charts. I would be willing to bet that they have also fallen behind in 'purchasing power' even more than other groups. And that would affect whether they can afford food to stay healthy, purchase housing, or retirement savings.

As i see it, even if we moved away from a Capitalist system, to a fully Socialist, or even Communist system, but kept the practice of wealthy individuals/companies being able to lobby, or otherwise influence Government, we would be in exactly the same situation. The wealth discrepancies are no less pronounced in states that rebelled and tried the Marx experiment. V Putin is kept in power by Russian oligarchs, and whenever one of them gets 'out of line' it necessitates a push out of the nearest window. Money always talks louder than reason; as Swansont says "Its human nature".