250 reputation
110
bio website
location
age
visits member for 2 years, 6 months
seen Dec 15 '12 at 1:59

Aug
13
comment Does the scientific community consider the Loschmidt paradox resolved? If so what is the resolution?
Could you please illustrate or point to the specific derivation/formulae which show that "its solution depends exponientally on the initials conditions."?
Jan
31
comment Chance of objects going against greater entropy?
Well, Landauer's principle may interest you
Jan
26
comment Deterministic quantum mechanics
no probability no
Jan
26
comment Is there a universal rest frame of reference?
you probably mean ... a unique rest frame ...
Jan
26
comment Is there a universal rest frame of reference?
actually, you are moving 99% of c in some reference frame
Jan
26
comment How are particle simplices associated into complex particles?
thanks, I tried to look up before, but I couldnt identify what engine was used and what environment I needed...
Jan
26
comment How are particle simplices associated into complex particles?
ah its latex then?
Jan
26
comment Chance of objects going against greater entropy?
(his question doesnt seem to refer to probability of strange events where wavefunction is small but nonzero in quantum mechanics, but to small probabilities in statistical mechanics)
Jan
26
comment Chance of objects going against greater entropy?
The logarithmic measure of multiplicity is but one of many equivalent definitions of entropy: when multiplicities are unavailable S[X]=-\int P(X=x)*ln(P(X=x)) dx. Apply to microscopic probability distribution and you get traditional entropy which tends to increase over time, but calculate entropy on macroscopic probability distribution and this will tend to decrease over time...
Jan
25
comment The Sun Can Make Stuff Hotter Than Itself
but then how come farts (pretty cold with respect to the flame) heat flames?
Jan
25
comment Chance of objects going against greater entropy?
or in short: microscopic entropy increases, macroscopic entropy decreases. BTW since life rests on making things more certain (i.e. the probability of having 2 legs should be much higher than other amounts of legs) macroscopic decrease of entropy is necessary, and hence microscopic increase of entropy is necessary...
Jan
25
comment Does the scientific community consider the Loschmidt paradox resolved? If so what is the resolution?
actually I had already voted you up because: the second bullet looks a lot like a different interpretation of what I have in mind, and because it is a summary of what different directions the scientific community explores on the topic, which was part of the question
Jan
25
comment Does the scientific community consider the Loschmidt paradox resolved? If so what is the resolution?
"the future and past don't play symmetric roles in logic." are you refering to the Kripke model of temporal logic? (which is used in formal verification of communication protocols etc)
Jan
25
comment Does the scientific community consider the Loschmidt paradox resolved? If so what is the resolution?
initial and final are no symbols from logic! although you may certainly call them symbols from common sense: we are macroscopic subsystems in a larger system
Jan
25
comment Does the scientific community consider the Loschmidt paradox resolved? If so what is the resolution?
i.e. perhaps an anthropocentric-style (but really macroscopic subsystem-style) argument resolves the Loschmidt paradox?
Jan
25
comment Does the scientific community consider the Loschmidt paradox resolved? If so what is the resolution?
I never questioned the need of axioms of logic! I question the need of axiom that introduces the arrow of time, perhaps it is already present as a COROLLARY of exactly the necessary axioms of logic.
Jan
25
comment Does the scientific community consider the Loschmidt paradox resolved? If so what is the resolution?
i.e. time would follow from memory (a macroscopic state of a subsystem of the system)
Jan
25
comment Does the scientific community consider the Loschmidt paradox resolved? If so what is the resolution?
I.e. if a (subjective towards the macroscopic entity in the system) definition of time would map microstates of the system to times the macroscopic entity in the system measures, perhaps this corrolary would follow?
Jan
25
comment Does the scientific community consider the Loschmidt paradox resolved? If so what is the resolution?
Could it not be that this axiom is not independent from more fundamental axioms (from say logic), i.e. it does not harm to add it as an axiom as it wont conflict, but it may be a corrolary of widely used deeper axioms, of which we dont know the proof yet?
Jan
25
comment Does the scientific community consider the Loschmidt paradox resolved? If so what is the resolution?
"the probability to get from the initial ensemble (at t1) to the final ensemble (at t2) must be averaged over the initial microstates but summed over the final microstates" you are using english "initial" and "final" to introduce a (hidden?) axiom which assumes t1 =< t2, i.e. it should really read "the probability to get from the ensemble A to the ensemble B must be averaged over A's microstates but summed over the B's microstates if and only if timeA <= time B" I believe this is true, as I said the evidence is overwhelming. But my question is: is this extra axiom necessary?