Jump to content

A mass of information


Recommended Posts

Thanks, I'm not really trying actually

 

That is precisely why you're doing a bang up job of ruining your reputation and exemplifying your incoherence. Hence, my post indicating this.

 

 

Troll.

 

 

 

EDIT: The troll edited his post 15 minutes after I made this one. The above quote no longer appears in his post, and may no longer make sense to you why I needed to clarify.

 

EDIT2: One hour later, the troll has edited the post again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

and may no longer make sense to you ... I needed to clarify.
Hey, this is my bridge - go find your own, you goddam goblin.

You have absolutely no idea what entropy is do you? You can't post anything that suggests you have the slightest notion, so resort to graffitos.

I'd say you don't know much of anything else. You're just a monkey looking for nits to pick out and chew on.

A goddam jabbering little monkey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, this is my bridge - go find your own, you goddam goblin.

You have absolutely no idea what entropy is do you? You can't post anything that suggests you have the slightest notion, so resort to graffitos.

I'd say you don't know much of anything else. You're just a monkey looking for nits to pick out and chew on.

A goddam jabbering little monkey.

 

[bold italics added by me]

Is that an admission that you are a troll, living under a bridge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, this is my bridge - go find your own, you goddam goblin.

You have absolutely no idea what entropy is do you? You can't post anything that suggests you have the slightest notion, so resort to graffitos.

I'd say you don't know much of anything else. You're just a monkey looking for nits to pick out and chew on.

A goddam jabbering little monkey.

 

Troll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

troller.jpg

 

Troller is looking for a response...ANY response, and he will chum the waters with complaints, insults, compliments, and inflammatory tidbits hoping that someone...ANYONE, will take the bait. Generally quite harmless - practices a form of catch and release. Nonetheless, he can upset the delicate ecology of a discussion forum. Once a forum becomes aware of his presence, however, all feeding activity ceases and Troller must move on to more promising waters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly hope so, he's starting to piss me off, just a little.

So how come no-one who claims to know, can actually say anything meaningful about entropy? Except for non sequiturs like" Entropy isn't change"??

What a bunch of idiots...

But at least you're all "Generally quite harmless"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly hope so, he's starting to piss me off, just a little.

So how come no-one who claims to know, can actually say anything meaningful about entropy? Except for non sequiturs like" Entropy isn't change"??

What a bunch of idiots...

But at least you're all "Generally quite harmless"

 

We've already given you the accepted definition of entropy. Your the one who doesn't accept it. If you don't believe us then there is nothing more we can do to help you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

E= hv tells you how much energy a photon has. Still doesn't mean light is energy.

The first sentence says that photons "have" energy. This is how the energy of light quanta are referred to. This is because EMR is energy, so the second sentence is incorrect Light most definitely is energy E, equal to its frequency (multiplied by Planck's constant).

 

Photon, particle of light energy, or energy that is generated by moving electric charges.
--encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574512/Photon.html
Electromagnetic Radiation

Radiant energy that exhibits wavelength-like behavior and travels through space at the speed of light in a vacuum.

--wwwbhs.bham.wednet.edu/depts/science/yoos/AP/Quantum_Mechanics_Atomic_Theory_StudentNotes2007.ppt.
The energy of an electromagnetic mode is proportional to the square of the amplitude of the oscillating field. In classical physics the amplitude of the field can have any value and so the energy of a mode of vibration can also have any value. In quantum mechanics the energy of vibration of a mode of electromagnetic oscillating with frequency n in a closed cavity can only have a discrete set of values, E = nhn, where n = 0, 1, 2, 3... (Black body radiation, Planck and Einstein)

Electromagnetic energy is detected as quanta of energy called photons with energy E = hn. This explains the photoelectric effect, which is the ejection of electrons from a metal plate when it is illuminated by electromagnetic radiation above a cutoff frequency. (Einstein)

--physics.qc.edu/pages/genack/204%20Development%20of%20Quantum%20Ideas.doc.

 

Thought I'd clear that one up, at least.:doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first sentence says that photons "have" energy. This is how the energy of light quanta are referred to. This is because EMR is energy, so the second sentence is incorrect Light most definitely is energy E, equal to its frequency (multiplied by Planck's constant).

 

--encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574512/Photon.html

--wwwbhs.bham.wednet.edu/depts/science/yoos/AP/Quantum_Mechanics_Atomic_Theory_StudentNotes2007.ppt.

 

--physics.qc.edu/pages/genack/204%20Development%20of%20Quantum%20Ideas.doc.

 

Thought I'd clear that one up, at least.:doh:

 

Hi Fred56. Looks like you got banned from that other forum too. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another forum member's ideas:

[Thermodynamic entropy and work] is based on the [concept] of a "closed system". When you look at entropy you look at the total system. Entropy can 'decrease' in a subsystem as long as the total entropy of the entire system increases. It must be cyclic' date=' and the overall entropy then can be zero (part of a cycle can have positive energy change, and another part an inverse, or negative energy change, but energy is [b']conserved[/b] -a negative part of the cycle is always balanced, and the overall change is zero, in a closed system).

 

Another way to say the same thing is to look at the system (of interest) and the surroundings. The entropy of the system can decrease if the entropy of the system + surroundings increases.

 

Common misconceptions held by chemistry students

 

Every year I teach my Advanced Chemistry course I tend to run into the same misconceptions. Here are some of the more common examples.

 

Entropy measures disorder - Entropy describes the number of ways to arrange a collection of particles or the energy of a system; it has little to do with disorder. A messy room doesn't have greater entropy than a neat room and a shuffled deck of cards does not have more entropy than an ordered deck. Entropy is a useful way to describe the macroscopic behavior of a collection of microscopic particles. A shuffled deck is just another arrangement of the collection of cards that is as equally likely as any other arrangement. As a bit of an aside here' date=' it's important to remember that words matter. Using "disorder" to describe entropy allows religious fundamentalist to propose the preposterous idea that evolution violates the Laws of Thermodynamics.[/quote']

Information usually is considered as some message or set of messages that convey meaning. This has nothing to do with info-theoretic notions of information.

 

Order, or disorder is something (a property) that can be seen in something as simple as a deck of cards, but any meaning attached to any particular ordering is outside the realm of the theory. Shannon called it information entropy, which is kind of a misnomer, it's really uncertainty/certainty, or probabilistic/expected "messages".

A message is any combination of bits in some alphabet. Once the alphabet is defined, all messages have the same "meaning".

 

Any order (shuffle) of a deck of cards is equivalent to any other, probabilistically. Shuffling a deck, or spreading it out on a table, does not increase its entropy. It only changes some ordering--disorder of the deck itself might be maximised by posting single cards to random destinations around the globe, say, or by throwing the deck up in the air so it 'produces' some random ordering. But it's still a deck of cards; changing the order does not change the deck, or its entropic state. The notion of external information is the same kind of notion as external thermodynamical systems, in which we see energy disperse.

Following the lead of Maxwell who had modeled gas molecules as colliding billiard balls' date=' Boltzmann argued that the second law was simply a consequence of the fact that since with each collision nonequilibrium distributions would become increasingly disordered leading to a final state of macroscopic uniformity and microscopic disorder.

 

Because there are so many more possible disordered states than ordered ones, he concluded, a system will almost always be found either in the state of maximum disorder or moving towards it.

 

As a consequence, a dynamically ordered state, one with molecules moving "at the same speed and in the same direction," Boltzmann ...asserted, is thus "the most improbable case conceivable...an infinitely improbable configuration of energy."

 

Because this idea works for certain near equilibrium systems such as gases in boxes, and because science until recently was dominated by near equilibrium thinking, Boltzmann's attempted reduction of the second law to a law of disorder became widely accepted as the second law rather than simply an hypothesis about the second law, and one that we now know fails.[/quote']

“We completely ignore the human value of the information. A selection of 100 letters is given a certain information value, and we do not investigate whether it makes sense in English, and, if so, whether the meaning of the sentence is of any practical importance. According to our definition, a set of 100 letters selected at random (according to the rules of Table 1.1), a sentence of 100 letters from a newspaper, a piece of Shakespeare or a theorem of Einstein are given exactly the same informational value."

 

“Information is an absolute quantity which has the same numerical value for any observer. The human value on the other hand would necessarily be a relative quantity, and would have different values for different observers…..”

 

“Whether this information is valuable or worthless does not concern us. The idea of “value” refers to the possible use by a living observer. This is beyond the reach of our theory…”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.