studiot

@Riba Have you seen this ?

Ok. Maybe tomorrow if I can find the time. p.s. Please state exactly why you think building a computer that does nothing, so doesn't generate any heat, is a counterexample to what I said. I don't see this as a difference difference between thermodynamic entropy and Shannon (or Hartley) entropy or any statement about the Second Law. Since you don't want to answer the question, for my part I think the most significant difference is that Once you have perfomed a computation and incurred whatever resource price the universe exacts in terms of energy, entropy etc, you do not have to incur those costs again since the result of that computation is then known, the next time it is required. However in thermodynamics the universe exacts its pound of flesh each and every time the given process is run or occurs.

+1

Excellently thought out and presented post. +1 I see from the map that Russia has now secured its land route (corridor) to the Crimea.

No. The name of this website is ScienceForums. As I understand the structure and rules, Serious subjects have a scientific aspect and many of these subjects are given a special section within the website for discussion of these scientific aspects. Religion is one of these. Such discussion involves criticism used in its proper meaning. The proper non colloquial meaning does not involve disparagement. This website also has a section where you can say "I hate Jesus, your cat, Allah, Buddha, big band music, the colour of your tie, or whatever" That section is called "The Lounge". However such proclaimations are unlikely to gain you much traction as they bore most scientifically mined folks. In fact the whole subject of religion bores me personally, and I would prefer it scrapped altogether. But I accept that there are scientific aspects of it, so I accept that others want it even if I don't, so long as they discuss the scientific aspects of it. The purpose of moderators is to moderate and the general concensus, not just my own opinion, is that they do a pretty good job for no reward. I personally have seen them listen to well reasoned requests and put a good deal of their own time and collective effort into making changes, where they have the power to so do. It should be acknowledged that they do not always have this power over matters which are set by the site's owners.

What an excellent post all round. +1

Do you deny the mathematics of the identity transformation ? Or do you deny that a computer that can perform exactly one transformation (the identity transformation) is a computer ?

Thank you for trying. Please state exactly what you think is the difference between thermodynamic entropy and Shannon (or Hartley) entropy and what exactly you think the Second Law says about both of them.

Well I'm sorry if all you want to do is make unqualified generalistic pronouncements , one counter example is enough to disprove your claim. Mathematical theory requires that there be such a thing as 'the identity transformation' for any operation or transformation. Such a transformation require exactly zero energy since no change occurs. However I would much rather you entered a proper discussion like other members here and addressed some of the points, posted for your benefit. You have made no visible attempt to answer the question posed in the opening post or thread title or to discuss entropy.

Quite so. In fact it is a member of many sets, for example the integers, the rationals, the set of all even numbers, the set of all squares of numbers.................. It is also the 'additive inverse' in set theory axioms for instance in peano's axioms of arithmetic. But I was giving the OP the benefit of the doubt as they say, as to what he was really trying to say, rather than just telling him he was wrong. Especially not to offer incorrect information.

How do you expect me to clarify it and why do you think I said ? I also copied a short quote to explain why I wondered if the OP meant imaginary when he said virtual. I will repeat that quote in case you did not read it. Look for the phrase 'unusual terminology'.

If you don't know 'whatever it means', how can you declare that zero is not a virtual number ? Zero is, in fact, a valid and necessary member of the set of imaginary numbers, which may be what the OP means. I have already asked for clarification I also note there are some other inconsistencies in the rest of your post that need addressing.

Kirchhoff (with two h's and two f's) was a 'polymath', who also contributed to Chemistry, particularly in the domain of chemical thermodynamics. And yes there is such a law, though it was not due to K but a gentleman named Hess. Hesse's Law and Hess Cycles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hess's_law +1 for interesting developments of your musings. I have also mentioned them in my thread on entropy and information.

No it isn't. This is where my RAM example comes in. The information may be set but unavailable, which has the same effect as being reset. This would be an example of the Caratheodory version of the second law. "In any system, there are nearby local states that are unavailable to the system" A computation that involves no energy is the topological transformation of a square to a circle. The information is available whether the actual transformation is performed or not and whether the necessary topological theory has ever been conceived, let alone enacted. You have now also mentioned this idea Thank you for spelling all that out in detail +1 My apologies, I didn't lin to the originating thread. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/126656-experiments-and-information/?tab=comments#comment-1200346

I like the first part. But this part runs into the difficulty I mentioned with the RAM chip. Notably the different erasure methods. For instance I can simply switch off the power to that chip. Or I can cut one or more address lines making the given cell unavailable. Or I can perform the more conventional activation of the appropriate address lines and then overwrite a zero into the given cell. I am sure there are more options.

Yes this is a damped oscillation, as you say, but there is more going on that. I'm not sure what part of my post you were responding to though.

OK, thanks for the replies. Here is my process example for idscussion. I have a 4 x 4 square board as in the diagram. On one square I have placed a coin but you cannot see it (you can see the one in the diagram for the purposes of explanation) In order to 'win' the coin you ask questions that may only be answered yes or no, represented by 1 (yes) and 0 (no) When you think you have determined the position of the coin you represent the answers to your questions by a string of ones and zeros. Using the example Is it in the first column? - No Is it in the second column? - Yes Is it in the first row? - No Is it in the second row? - Yes represented as information by the string 0101 What happens to the information entropy at each stage of the Q&A ?

The thread is inspired by a claim in a recent thread that information entropy, as defined by Shannon, is the same as the thermodynamic definition of entropy which obeys the Second Law and therefore cannot decrease. Is this correct ?

I agree there is sometimes no bulk flow of matter. But how much momentum flows in the case of a standing wave ? This is not as I understand the mechanism

By all means demonstrate that this is the case but consider this So let us consider computer memory chip, A RAM chip. So I agree it takes a specific amount of energy input to 'write' to one cell of the Ram chip. But there are several ways to effect erasure, each with their own energy cost. Note I have started a new thread, specifically to examine any correspondence between Shannon entropy and Thermodynamic entropy.

The disturbing force has nothing to do with gravity.

Thank you. +1 Yes was beginning to wonder if anyone else knew how the original effect was generated. But, @Ken Fabian the distrubing force is not of the same type as the restoring force in the original effect. In fact disturbing force is generated by elastic flexing of the wall of the glass. This results in a direct ( and local) contact force on water. The waves are generated by the rotating finger on the glass, in contrast to the equilibrium tide in the Earth's oceans I referred to. Again the rotation of the Moon around the Earth provides the required periodicity. You are correct in saying that the restoring forces is gravity in both cases. Incidentally probably the best definition of an elastic system is "A system in which the displacement is directly proportional to the applied disturbing force." This would include both the volumetric compression of gases and the distortion of solids and the displacement of liquids.

There are lots of physical processes that are characterised by the expression A = Blogp(C) Where A and C are variables and B is a constant (which may incorporate a negative sign) and p is a given base for the logarithm. Why are folks so determined to dream up a physical link beteen two such processes, one in thermodynamics and one in Information theory ? Should we be adding say a link to chemical pH ?

It is worth, as I suggested, considering the mechanism of disturbing and the restoring forces of the original example. I agree How do you think this applies to the disturbing and restoring forces in the glass of water ? Another similar wave, but with differences, is the wave that is called 'the equilibrium tide' for the Earth-Moon system.

Good question as you are considering the fundamentals of the question "what is a wave" ? I has been posited here that in order to have a wave a 'restoring force' is required. Surely this force is only required if mass is involved. If you are going to stick to the original example, mass is involved so it is worth investigating disturbing and restoring forces. So thank you for starting off a worthwhile discussion, but please try to offer more focus at the outset.