No, it’s a property, not stuff. More specifically it is a statistical property of an ensemble of objects, for example molecules. It’s to do with the number of ways energy can be distributed. The more ways, the greater the entropy.what is randomness or entropy? is it made up of something?
can you please elaborate on this.... like distribute in???It’s to do with the number of ways energy can be distributed. The more ways, the greater the entropy.
Distribution among the available "microstates" of the system. These are the individual states it is possible for a molecule, say, to explore in the course of its random thermal motion. You can think of them as all the possible combinations of momentum, position etc that are permitted by quantum mechanics.can you please elaborate on this.... like distribute in???
Distribution among the available "microstates" of the system. These are the individual states it is possible for a molecule, say, to explore in the course of its random thermal motion. You can think of them as all the possible combinations of momentum, position etc that are permitted by quantum mechanics.
There is a connection to the idea of disorder, in that the more of these microstates there are, the more ways there are to arrange the system and the more "random" any given configuration will be.
The basic formula is Bolzmann's equation S =k loge W, in which S is entropy, W is the number of ways to arrange the system, i.e. microstates and k is Boltzmann's constant. (This equation is actually inscribed on his tombstone in Vienna.)
You can get an intuitive idea of what it means by thinking of thermal energy becoming "lost" or "spread out" among all these states. The more that this has occurred, the less the ability of this thermal energy to be organised enough to do mechanical work.
Also, the randomising of energy in this way tends to be irreversible. Once it has become spread out it is hard to collect it together again. Entropy increases in all irreversible thermodynamic processes.
best explaination i've got till now for entropy, thank you so much. do you have any idea about the most fundamental things like inside quarks its energy so what's this energy made up of?Laws of Thermodynamics: History
...
(2) Entropy: Origin of the Second Law of Thermodynamics
11:38 min.
"This paper is mostly important for the new terminology in it. Because this is the paper where he renamed the equivalence value to be the shorter term entropy and gave it the letter S for no reason I can tell. ..."
entropy (n.)
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=entropy
thank you for the linkLaws of Thermodynamics: History
...
(2) Entropy: Origin of the Second Law of Thermodynamics
11:38 min.
"This paper is mostly important for the new terminology in it. Because this is the paper where he renamed the equivalence value to be the shorter term entropy and gave it the letter S for no reason I can tell. ..."
entropy (n.)
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=entropy
No my degree is in chemistry. The way quarks are bound inside hadrons is not something I know much about. James may know, if he swings by.best explaination i've got till now for entropy, thank you so much. do you have any idea about the most fundamental things like inside quarks its energy so what's this energy made up of?
Energy isn't made of anything. Energy is just a number, like an accounting system.do you have any idea about the most fundamental things like inside quarks its energy so what's this energy made up of?
One thing I have never understood about quarks is that the rest mass of a hypothetical free quark is predicted to be much less that than of quarks bound in hadrons. Generally speaking, the "binding energy" due to an attractive force (e.g. an electron bound in an atom by the EM interaction, or a proton or neutron bound in an atomic nucleus by the strong interaction) is the amount by which the energy of the bound state is lower than that of the free state. But in the quark's case it seems the energy is higher when it is bound! Would that not mean that hadrons should fly apart? Is there some activation energy barrier preventing that? Or I have I misunderstood?Energy isn't made of anything. Energy is just a number, like an accounting system.
Nothing is made of energy.
As for quarks, as far as we can tell so far there's nothing inside quarks. They appear to be fundamental particles. They are the constituents of other particles. For instance, a proton consists of two up quarks and one down quark. Quarks are bound together by the strong interaction.
so you think string theory is not right??As for quarks, as far as we can tell so far there's nothing inside quarks. They appear to be fundamental particles. They are the constituents of other particles. For instance, a proton consists of two up quarks and one down quark. Quarks are bound together by the strong interaction.
I think you need to explain why you say this.so you think string theory is not right??
Ah yes the increase in force with distance would produce an activation barrier and stop the hadron flying apart.exchemist:
The strong force is a strange beast. Unlike gravity or electromagnetic, whose strength decreases with distance, the strength of the strong force increases with distance, at least up to the point where it ceases working at all. I'm not sure this helps to answer your question, though, apart from explaining why hadrons don't fly apart.
There's no such thing as a "free" quark. Suppose we take a meson, made of two quarks, and try to pull the quarks apart. As we pull them apart, the attractive force gets stronger and stronger until there is enough "potential energy" there to create some new quarks out of the vacuum, which then bond with the original quarks to form new composite particles.
I am not a particle physicist, so please take all this with the relevant grain of salt. But as I understand it, in the Standard Model, the strong force is transmitted from quark to quark by "virtual" bosons, called gluons. In a particle like a proton, then, we have not just the three quarks that make up the proton, but also an active "sea" of gluons continuously buzzing around the place. Apparently, the masses of those gluons contribute most of the apparent mass of the proton, rather than the quarks being directly responsible for that.
There's no way to tell whether it's right or wrong, yet, as far as I'm aware.so you think string theory is not right??