No. It’s not research at all. It’s a layman’s description of entropy, the purpose of which is to avoid the relatively common mistake of misidentifying entropy as, for example, “disorder.” There’s nothing revolutionary in here, and a basic thermodynamics textbook will confirm the contents. The purpose is to reidentify entropy from “That niggling problem we need to overcome that leads to the heat death of the universe” to “The principle by which we’re here to consider the problem of the heat death of the universe to begin with.”
Contentious? Like what? (Seriously. I was working to avoid contentious statements.)
The word “proof” is prefaced with a modifier which warns the reader it is not a formal proof and may contain faults. It’s not misuse under those conditions.
I’ll expand BBT out to big bang theory. What terms are undefined?
In a universe in which entropy is reversed, rivers would flow uphill—planets would slowly disintegrate, in point of fact, into galactic clouds of gas.
Entropy is not a property of a system, but a property of forces; the law of entropy can be restated as “Forces do what forces do.” We measure entropy strictly in terms of things meaningful to use; it cannot be directly measured, because it doesn’t exist.
Undefined terms are everywhere, from forces, to micro/macro states to information.
A galactic cloud of gas contains less entropy than a planet. An object higher up a gravitational well has less entropy than one lower in it. Presuming the law of entropy is reversed, it would be impossible for an object to fall—that would be a violation of the reversed law of entropy. It would be capable, absent a decrease in entropy somewhere else to compensate (“work”), only of rising, if that only by random drift. Thus, rivers would flow uphill, and planets would slowly disintegrate. What’s to contend?
Entropy -isn’t- directly measured. It doesn’t even exist as an inherent property of isolated matter; it exists only as a relative property when comparing two points in a system. I didn’t get into degrees of freedom, but they figure into this; if we discover a new inherent property of matter that can be exploited for work, all previous entropic values go out the window. This also isn’t contentious. Entropy is a product of calculation based on degrees of freedom.
Microstates and macrostates are used in their conventional thermodynamic sense; we’re on the internet, a Google query will provide these definitions. Forces are used in their conventional physics sense.
Information is a messy one. I’ll consider that one, but I consider it here only to address a particular misapprehension about entropy, so I’m not sure if that’s important, since the context of that misapprehension means anybody possessed of it already knows what I’m talking about.
Too many crackpot red flags to count.
Is this original research? If so, may I recommend reading a physics textbook before attempting? If not, where are the references?
No. It’s not research at all. It’s a layman’s description of entropy, the purpose of which is to avoid the relatively common mistake of misidentifying entropy as, for example, “disorder.” There’s nothing revolutionary in here, and a basic thermodynamics textbook will confirm the contents. The purpose is to reidentify entropy from “That niggling problem we need to overcome that leads to the heat death of the universe” to “The principle by which we’re here to consider the problem of the heat death of the universe to begin with.”
I’ve added a leading abstract to this effect.
Edited further for clarity.
Still a number of contentious statements with no references. Misuse of the term “proof”. Unexplained acronyms, undefined terms…
Contentious? Like what? (Seriously. I was working to avoid contentious statements.)
The word “proof” is prefaced with a modifier which warns the reader it is not a formal proof and may contain faults. It’s not misuse under those conditions.
I’ll expand BBT out to big bang theory. What terms are undefined?
Examples of contentious statements:
In a universe in which entropy is reversed, rivers would flow uphill—planets would slowly disintegrate, in point of fact, into galactic clouds of gas.
Entropy is not a property of a system, but a property of forces; the law of entropy can be restated as “Forces do what forces do.” We measure entropy strictly in terms of things meaningful to use; it cannot be directly measured, because it doesn’t exist.
Undefined terms are everywhere, from forces, to micro/macro states to information.
A galactic cloud of gas contains less entropy than a planet. An object higher up a gravitational well has less entropy than one lower in it. Presuming the law of entropy is reversed, it would be impossible for an object to fall—that would be a violation of the reversed law of entropy. It would be capable, absent a decrease in entropy somewhere else to compensate (“work”), only of rising, if that only by random drift. Thus, rivers would flow uphill, and planets would slowly disintegrate. What’s to contend?
Entropy -isn’t- directly measured. It doesn’t even exist as an inherent property of isolated matter; it exists only as a relative property when comparing two points in a system. I didn’t get into degrees of freedom, but they figure into this; if we discover a new inherent property of matter that can be exploited for work, all previous entropic values go out the window. This also isn’t contentious. Entropy is a product of calculation based on degrees of freedom.
Microstates and macrostates are used in their conventional thermodynamic sense; we’re on the internet, a Google query will provide these definitions. Forces are used in their conventional physics sense.
Information is a messy one. I’ll consider that one, but I consider it here only to address a particular misapprehension about entropy, so I’m not sure if that’s important, since the context of that misapprehension means anybody possessed of it already knows what I’m talking about.