DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
W4U and SSB have entirely missed the point. I suspect they're more interested in arguing than discussing.
Indeed.
Entropy in everyday life
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
The offer to start a thread for you on this stands. Let me know if you would like to take it up.I thought it was a natural follow up to wegs' question. We are talking entropy, no?
Sorry....
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I don't think harmony has a scientifically well-defined meaning, except in the field of acoustics.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
No. Energy being spread out does not imply anything about harmony.Is entropy the opposite of harmony? I'd say that it's a measurement of disharmony?
But, that would depend on how we define harmony.
Oh no, here we go again.
Harmony, to extend it from its musical meaning, would imply sets of sine waves that are multiples of one another, so that you get constructive interference creating a new sine wave. This is the reason that consonant intervals in music sound pleasing.
If you start talking about harmony, you are essentially talking about waves rather than statistics. As it happens, it has been said (by Peter Atkins, I think) that physical chemistry is built on two great pillars: statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics. We have been talking about the first in our discussion of entropy. You sound as if you may now be starting to embark on the second.
Gotcha, okay. I'm thinking that harmony = order.
I've been thunking about this.
I don't think kilograms are logarithmic, or metres or seconds. What does that leave so there are "lots" of physical things, quantified logarithmically?
For say, a gas in a container, would it be acceptable to have a logarithmic volume? Why or why not?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I'll need to think about that a bit.
I suppose order can take the form of regular repeating patterns. And a sine wave is a regular repeating pattern. But I think this is stretching things to a point at which there is not really any insight to be had.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Quite a few physical things in chemistry are derived from logarithmic expressions, such as anything to do with equilibrium constants (pH is a case in point), free energy relationships, etc. Basically anything where exponents come into play is likely to involve logs somewhere along the line.
But I suppose it depends what you mean by a "thing". I'm sure you can employ the no-true-scotsman principle to define "thing" so as to exclude anything like that, if you want to.
Agree feel the effects of gravity on the brick and feather
And as noted in this screenshot Gravity Force is also known as Weight
But but but it does not say Weight Force
Consider this - there is a colony on the moon
They request a kg of XYZ
Do they mean a Earth kg XYZ, or a Moon kg of XYZ?
The concept has a different value depending on location
Now it would not matter if the moon orders a mass of XYZ
Earth would know the exact amount of mass of XYZ to send
Even the colony on Pluto would get the same mass if so ordered, but ordering a kg would again bring up Earth kg or Pluto kg
In communications theory, the transmission of information involves error-correction.
So you have to transmit information in an encoded form such that errors can be detected and corrected. Error detection is 'entropic' because there is uncertainty--random changes--so you need an encoding that means every bit (or character) is checked.
Indeed the nature of transmission of information is intrinsically uncertain. The work done detecting and correcting errors also doesn't contribute to the information content which is something transmission has to preserve.
So you have to transmit information in an encoded form such that errors can be detected and corrected. Error detection is 'entropic' because there is uncertainty--random changes--so you need an encoding that means every bit (or character) is checked.
Indeed the nature of transmission of information is intrinsically uncertain. The work done detecting and correcting errors also doesn't contribute to the information content which is something transmission has to preserve.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I dug this up in regard to your question. Not sure if this is what you were asking. IMO, it seems to adress Harmony v Diffusion (Order v Disorder)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5312126/
That's really beautiful
In my mind, I had it sorted out, as something perhaps metaphorical/philosophical. But, how great that there's a scientific explanation.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
It just struck me that "weight" occupies a similar abstract philosophical concept as your "age".......Of course it was easy
I gave you the answer
yes?
YesIt just struck me that "weight" occupies a similar abstract philosophical concept as your "age".......
There is no lump of age out there waiting to be discovered
or time, or speed, or .........
I am guessing that the number of non existent stuff out there which will never be found is fairly large
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
But that does not mean the weight is not physical. Unlike say energy, or momentum, or entropy (which this thread was about, once upon a time) - or indeed mass, for that matter - weight is directly measurable. You cannot get more physical than that.Agree feel the effects of gravity on the brick and feather
View attachment 2582
And as noted in this screenshot Gravity Force is also known as Weight
But but but it does not say Weight Force
Consider this - there is a colony on the moon
They request a kg of XYZ
Do they mean a Earth kg XYZ, or a Moon kg of XYZ?
The concept has a different value depending on location
Now it would not matter if the moon orders a mass of XYZ
Earth would know the exact amount of mass of XYZ to send
Even the colony on Pluto would get the same mass if so ordered, but ordering a kg would again bring up Earth kg or Pluto kg
This is a sticky point with me (I guess)
The directly measurable feature is GRAVITY, not the MASS
Take the MASS to the Moon it's weight changes
Take same mass to Jupiter, weight changes again
For me a feature which changes in such a manner is OK as a concept but not something with a presence (the presence is GRAVITY, which is being measured)
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Not true. A spring balance or load cell directly measures force. Nothing else.This is a sticky point with me (I guess)
The directly measurable feature is GRAVITY, not the MASS
Take the MASS to the Moon it's weight changes
Take same mass to Jupiter, weight changes again
For me a feature which changes in such a manner is OK as a concept but not something with a presence (the presence is GRAVITY, which is being measured)
The force can be weight of an object or a pull from a locomotive or the tension in a cable or anything. Force can be measured directly.
Gravity (or gravitation) is a theory Newton invented, to account for the observation of one particular kind of force, exerted between objects due to something called their "mass", which is another thing we can't measure directly.
Mass is measured by using a balance comparing a known mass against a unknown mass
Currently I am mass / weight / force overloaded
Break time for me
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
All that does is compare two forces. You then infer a mass ratio from that, by assuming F=mg applies to both, g being a constant.Mass is measured by using a balance comparing a known mass against a unknown mass
Currently I am mass / weight / force overloaded
Break time for me
There is no way that I can think of that measures mass directly.