"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." - Ayn Rand
S =/= Q/T
S = T/Q
Reducing my model to five major points or theses:
Everything on Earth, as Earth itself, can be traced back to gravity in just a few simple steps.
1. ALL MATERIALS heavier than hydrogen were and are being forged in the center of stars by nuclear fusion as a consequence of the gravity of these stellar objects.
2. Each new atom so created is more complex than its predecessor, and is created in an ever shortening span of time. Thus the effect of gravity ENHANCES COMPLEXITY, and so, by that definition, REDUCES ENTROPY; it does so on all levels.
3. ALL FORMS OF ENERGY prevailing, such as heat, light, and movement, on Earth ultimately originate in the Sun, the Moon or the Earth itself as a consequence of the gravity of these stellar objects as well. The same applies for others.
4. LIFE ON EARTH is but the latest stage of COMPLEXITY in this location in space and at this moment in time. Along with the ENERGY it feeds upon and the MATERIAL that it is composed of, living tissue is, simply put, just another consequence of gravity.
5. The high- energy, low- entropy conditions brought forth by the self- accumulation and self- organization of matter through its own gravity sparks a THERMODYNAMIC REACTION, of which human economy is a part. The laws governing this process will not allow a profit.
Could it be simpler?
- - - - - - - - -
Comments on point:
1: This is undisputed, as far as I know.
2: Highly controversial. Science is divided on how to exactly define entropy, depending on its purpose.
For the sake of the arguments provided here, (low) entropy will be defined as a measure of complexity, gradient, and potential; the nuclear transformation of hydrogen to helium alone then is proof of the entropy- lowering effect of gravity, as would be the reduction and separation of carbon and hydrogen oxide (or mineral water) to carbohydrates and free oxygen via photosynthesis (effective of the gravity of the Sun), or similar processes via chemosynthesis (effective of the gravity of the Earth).
3: My thesis; the general opinion of science on this is unknown to me.
It seems almost to not have been looked for very seriously yet. Usually, the debate stops short at "the Sun" as a "source of all earthly energy", but goes no further; thus ignoring (not only) the energy that the Earth itself provides.
4: A consequence of points 1 - 3; as everything else, life is only a special form of what is.
Living tissue, as all else, except for perhaps the existence of matter itself, is a chain consequence of gravity.
Just as gravity creates a mix of increasingly complex atoms out of simpler ones in the center of the stars, the lesser gravitational forces in the region of their satellites generate ever more complex molecules through chemical reaction, once pressure and temperature fall below the values necessary for serial condensation - first exothermic (oxidation...) then endothermic (reduction...); first loaded, then fed by the energy generated through the nearby centers of gravity.
5. A consequence of points 1 - 4; applies to all forms of energy conversion, of which the human economy is only a special area.
More to point 5:
Economics are not recognized as a "real" science by other scientists, since their forecasting prowess range within that of Competent Astrology, and that independent of their respective ideology; their proponents can easily be consistently wrong with their predictions, and still be considered experts.
This shows they have no better alternative to fear.
However, if forecast outcomes are wrong more than half the time, then the underlying theses, or premises, will most probably themselves not be right.
Thus to contrary, point 5 states:
- The physical value of work is always negative; and with that, so is its economic value; a profit exists only in the form of (ignored) debt.
- By that token, work is just another form, or rather level, of consumption, albeit a tedious one, for it is subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
- By the same, work may indeed lead to a fortune, but not to wealth. Wealth is bound to that state which can not be produced by man, beast, plant or machine, but has previously been generated by matter itself, outside of thermodynamics - something akin to order as opposed to disorder.
- The need to perform work to achieve a goal may be inevitable, but the product thereof is always less valuable than the resources which are, just as inevitably, destroyed in the process (which may include something like a clean environment - negative entropy!).
- As the Second Law of Thermodynamics states, the net resources depleted by work cannot be (re-) generated by the performance of work; work should therefore be performed economically, or limited to the minimum required for the desired result. Alas...
Plants do perform work. They move large masses of matter against strong forces by burning carbohydrates produced with sunlight via photosynthesis.
However, plants are a secondary form of life. Life was before plants; and even today, primary and secondary life goes on in lightless deep- sea volcanic areas via a process aptly named chemosynthesis.
- During chemosynthesis, bacteria living on the sea floor (or within animals) use energy stored in the chemical bonds of hydrogen sulfide and methane to make glucose from the water and carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water. Pure sulfur and sulfur compounds are produced as by- products.
- Wherever there is or was magma and (sea-) water, chemosynthesis is possible: sulfates in deep sea water penetrating through cracks in the crust are converted to hydrogen sulfide at heat and high pressure, which, when it is again released into the ocean through deep-sea vents, bacteria break down and metabolize as the first step in a food chain.
- Of course, the Sun produces far more concentrated energy (and therefore negentropy) then does the Earth; it's mass and gravity is far stronger; so, naturally, photosynthesis took over with a vengeance, once seaborne life had come into contact with sunlight.
- - - - - - - - -
To put it as brutally as possible:
In my opinion, Marx was utterly wrong when, around 1867, he stated that all profit stems from human labour; but all others were too, for he was not alone in this assumption.
Even his sworn enemies still today postulate the economic profit of human labour; their only fight with their counterparts is over the proper allocation of that purely arithmetic cookbook profit - and, more importantly, the allocation of the clandestine debt hidden deep within the recipe.
They were, and are, wrong on two counts: one, that human labour is the (sole) source of profit, as opposed to that of animals or machines; two, that this profit exists at all.
Humans, animals, or machines all produce a loss through any action; this loss, if not compensated for by gravity, is then hidden somewhere to produce a faux and faked profit.
Were it otherwise, industrialization would not have taken place.
Strangest is the fact that this idea of "profit through human labour" caught on the very instant mills began harnessing outside power, then steam engines began to outperform both humans and animals; yet no- one ever thought of allocating profit to an object, inanimate or not; only to its owner.
It may have been nothing more than some thought of compensation for expropriation.
If two people pay each other for goods & services, they won't earn any money - their cheques (or i.o.u.'s) will just keep bouncing back and forth ("circulating" between two people).
And raising the number of participants has no effect on this inside game.
As a story in a comic strip called "Lucky Luke" once told of a Chinese town in the West, its inhabitants had decided to go, evenly, into one of two businesses; laundry shops and restaurants. Their idea was, of course, to thereby live clean and satisfied lives for ever after. Instead, they could not afford each other's services, and were dying dirty and hungry - until our hero Lucky Luke cajoled a horde of equally dirty and hungry cowboys into town, who brought in outside money and saved the day for everyone.
Funny as it is, it's wise as well.
The Chinese town inhabitants could not survive on themselves, because any economic activity produces a net loss: food is consumed; as is heat for water and soap, to name just a few.
The waste of this activity is then, hopefully, washed out of town by the river running through, polluting it on the way and depleting resources for ever by taking them into the sea. To compensate, 'outside' money has to come 'in' to purchase new resources as replacement from 'somewhere else'.
However, in a global economy there is no 'outside' money, nor are there 'outside' resources. Global resources have to be replenished in situ by something non- monetary, non- thermodynamic and non- economic:
I. e. gravity.
- - - - - - - - -
Now, for the physical side of things.
According to wonderful Wikipedia, the concept of entropy was introduced by Rudolf Julius Emanuel Clausius, a German physicist and mathematician.
"In 1865, Clausius gave the first mathematical version of the concept of entropy, and also gave it its name... He used the now abandoned unit 'Clausius' (symbol: Cl) for entropy. (1)
1 Clausius (Cl) = 1 calorie/degree Celsius (cal/°C) = 4.1868 joules per Kelvin (J/K)
The landmark 1865 paper in which he introduced the concept of entropy ends with the following summary of the first and second laws of thermodynamics:
The energy of the universe is constant. (2)
The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum. (3)"
But why is it so difficult to calculate, let alone to measure entropy in any meaningful way or manner, and is it so fraught with exceptions, caveats, definitions, restrictions and special cases?
In my opinion, it could be that Clausius misinterpreted the physical dimension of entropy in 1865.
Interestingly, both possible mistakes (by Marx and Clausius respectively) would then have been made very much at around the same time,1865/67, about 100 years after the invention of the steam engine; and moreover, both had to do with it.
Both Clausius and Marx wanted to theoretically understand the effect of running a steam engine, one physically and one as a means of production; Clausius as a physicist and Marx as an economist.
Both could have made a similar mistake, by viewing something the wrong way around; Marx by ignoring the inherent loss of the work process (energy and resource consumption), Clausius by naming something as positive which is inherently negative (entropy).
And things went on from there.
(1) Clausius clearly meant and aimed entropy to be measurable (in Cl); as in 3 Volts, 5 liters, or 25 Clausius, expressed generally in Q/T or energy divided by temperature.
This unit was later "dropped", and dropped altogether. The question of a unit for entropy was never resolved.
Of course, Q and T can be expressed in a variety of ways, and have to be, a specific unit missing, giving calculations of entropy a decidedly esoteric quality.
Still, in physics, you can define any physical quantity you like. Some are dimensionless by nature, but Q and T are both quantifiable and have different units (J, K), so they don't cancel each other out.
Defining S (Cl) = Q/T (J/K) or 1 Cl = 4.1868 J/K or any other fraction
is therefore perfectly legit.
(2) Thermodynamics had already introduced the concept of irreversibility, which is expressly forbidden in classical mechanics.
Newton's classical mechanics, useful as they still are, are an idealization; in reality, all processes on the level of energy conversion are not at all completely reversible, they "run out" after some time; but the overall conservation of mass and energy still holds.
This is no longer the case in the realm of either nuclear or astronomical physics, which do not abide by the Second Law of Thermodynamics; relativity or E/m=c² states that, once you go beyond classical mechanics, or classical thermodynamics, neither time nor space nor energy nor mass are constant in that classical sense.
- So, the energy of the universe is NOT constant - at least not the way Clausius would have meant it in 1865.
- But he could not have known this; as E = mc² was formulated almost half a century later by Einstein in 1905.
(3) Clausius' definition of entropy puts the temperature in the denominator of the fraction Q/T; if T approaches 0, Q/T approaches infinity, independent of Q.
This begs two questions:
1. How can the entropy of the universe still tend to a maximum, when its mean temperature is already near absolute zero (and has been for long), and therefore its entropy S should be near to infinity accordingly?
When & where was that at its minimum? When the temperature of the universe was extremely high in the beginning?
2. For something to have low entropy, either the temperature T in Q/T must be high, or the energy content Q must be low.
However, zero entropy is being constantly defined as a condition prevailing at T = 0K. For that, its energy content must be exactly 0 as well, or a forbidden division by zero takes place.
These are mathematical conditions, not physical ones.
May it not have been a sign error, but an inversion by choice after all?
But back in 1865, these were the very beginnings of the understanding of thermodynamics; and Wikipedia and others tread, very, very carefully, by Jove! around the question why Clausius defined the new and hitherto unknown physical quantity of entropy as Q/T and not, say, T/Q.
Never mind the confusion of naming something as negative as "disorder" with a positive expression, thereby forcing the positive expression to be negative - "negative entropy" as in "negative disorder" or order.
So let's just assume that way back then, an esteemed scientist named Clausius tentatively noticed a relationship between two physical quantities in the new field of thermodynamics concerning that very practical steam engine, where almost every definition was still unbelievably hazy; he had a 50/50 chance of getting it the right way around, and, just by chance, missed it.
Now, in science, anyone who comes up with something new has the patent, so to speak; it has to be plausible, yes, but it does not have to be proven right very much beyond that; in fact, the others have to prove it wrong.
This typically takes one or two generations, or 60 - 120 years; as scientific generations come along with hoards of disciples and scholars, with very vested interests. Einstein's revolution of physics would have been the perfect chance to right all wrongs; unfortunately, the scientific community was, at that time, involved in blowing one another up with utmost efficiency.
And if they perhaps slowly began to realize that this entropy thing might be a bit wrong in theory and dimension, maybe in some controversies decades later ongoing, I could guess they didn't want to rewrite everything they had already written on the subject, and get everyone & everything all horribly confused, so they quietly dropped the unit as useless and left it at that, hoping that as X/Y = 1/Y/X, they could handle it mathematically, as this was all extremely theoretical stuff anyway - or so they thought.
Unfortunately, 1 liter makes sense, but 1/liter is a useless expression. Reality is a bitch... you cannot express volume in 1/liter or measure 1/volumeth by 1/liter without completely messing things up, and in consequence ripping an ever- widening hole in the time- space continuum, raising Cthulhu and causing chaos to reign in the process of going mad - especially once you find out that you are not dealing with something marginal that you can frame at will, but the effective, glowing CORE of all being.
Of course, you can always use J/K to express or compare a certain amount of S, as in 2,4x10³ J/K or any conversion thereof.
But it still seems like they want to (very successfully!) deter you from doing so and hide the fact that S = Q/T makes no real sense, and cannot be expressed as some measurable quantity as in
"x J/K" will have twice the effect of "x/2 J/K".
And so you will find very few concrete and public calculations of entropy on the net... and indeed, there are controversies about whether it can be measured at all.
So let's just further assume that, if someone defines a new physical quantity you can measure, and a unit you can express it in, but then his colleagues go on to scrap the unit, while continuing to calculate the quantity under multiple definitions, names & combination of units - well, there seems to be something amiss.
I have no Idea if this is the case or even a viable thought; but it may be that the concept of entropy could be in for a major revision, perhaps a new definition.
So, just for the exercise, let us re- define entropy as "untropy" Su = T/Q (Ugh).
If T approaches 0, T/Q now approaches 0, independent of Q.
This results in the following changes of the above:
1. The untropy of the universe can still tend to a maximum, but since its mean temperature is near absolute zero (and has been for long), and therefore its untropy Su is at the moment very low.
When & where was its maximum?
When its temperature was extremely high in the beginning? Could be. Or perhaps in the end, if it collapses. Who knows, who cares, we now have a long way to go.
The untropy of objects such as the Sun and Earth or a can of gasoline could quite easily be calculated and measured in "Ugh", by dividing its momentary temperature by its energy content - if that makes any sense.
"x K/J" will then indeed have twice the effect of "x/2 K/J" - or 2 Ugh (K/J) have twice the effect of 1 Ugh (K/J) - probably true, whatever it may mean.
If you burn the can of gasoline, or run an engine on it, the overall untropy in the surroundings will rise, because the overall temperature T rises, while the First Law of Thermodynamics sees to it that Q stays the same.
So, nothing changes there; the laws governing thermodynamics are safe.
2. For something to have low untropy, either the temperature T in T/Q must be low, or the energy content Q must be high.
So, zero untropy being defined as a condition prevailing at T = 0K is perfectly fine. At 0K, any energy content is irrelevant. That sounds Ok...
At any temperature above 0K, the energy content Q must be high for the untropy to be low.
Low untropy means high energy potential? That sounds Ok as well...
There seem to be no exceptions and conditions and caveats here...
Everything falls into place...
- - - - - - - - -
So, with this new quantity in mind, let's have a qualitative look at the workings of gravity again, shall we?
A cloud of hydrogen the size of a solar system and a mean temperature of around 0K collapses and forms a star. The energy content Q is now higher. The temperature T, formerly near 0K, now is higher as well.
Is Su2 = T2/Q2 (after collapse) <|> Su1 = T1/Q1 (before collapse)?
If you set Su to T/Q, something very strange happens. The untropy within the space taken up by the cloud is already near 0, as T is near 0. Now the mean temperature T within that space increases as it empties, being very hot in a very small concentrated center but staying near 0K in the outskirts of that solar system; and empty space has no temperature anyway. Increasing T, however slightly, increases untropy Su.
But how high is Q? That is up for debate; but as the hydrogen cloud collapses, billions of tons begin to dislocate and move towards their center of gravity, steadily raising their energy level until the release of nuclear energy may occur; Q is increased. Increasing Q lowers untropy Su.
Which factor will have the upper hand? The race is on. But one thing is clear: under these premises, the untropy of a dark and cold cloud of hydrogen gas or plasma is already very low at the beginning, and gravitational collapse tends not so much to lower untropy but to preserve that original state of low untropy while increasing the energy level of the system.
It may yet be that untropy is only viable where energy release or conversion takes place; simple heat transfer may not suffice.
This outcome of a mathematical manipulation is very strange indeed.
- - - - - - - - -
But the overall concept even has a philosophical or theological aspect:
What people do, what physicists do, with all respect, is totalitarian: they would like to ensnare everything that humans have ever thunk into one, single, all- encompassing Theory of Everything.
The trouble is, humans just keep on thinking, to be "as God" - and that already went wrong at least once before.
Now, looking for the Source of Everything is quite the opposite. Once you have the source, the quest is over - no matter what follows next. It just keeps on unfolding. Like so, for instance:
- As a human being, you are part of creation.
So far, so good.
- If, as a human being, you need the concept of God in your mind for Creation to be (zebras don't) - you're stuck with it.
- If however you need to REFUTE the concept of God in your mind for Creation to be (zebras don't) - you're stuck with it as well.
The universe is not symmetric!
- But if you neither need, nor need to refute the concept of God in your mind for Creation to be - for you to be - because creation is able to happen by itself, while following a very rigorous physical principle, then you are free to believe or not to believe, without jeopardizing the possibility of your own existence; and one is relieved of that final decision.
And that freedom alone is quite overwhelming.
- - - -
[Save page as: Text] or
[Web Page, complete]
01. Thinking in Reverse _ Minds.html
02. The Opening of the Sluices _ Minds.html
03. Everyone thinks the Same - and that is Wrong _ Minds.html
04. Human Economy - in Greater Context _ Minds.html
05. Ape Economy _ Minds.html
06. The Mechanics of Creation _ Minds.html
07. The Grand Conclusion _ Minds.html
08. Addendum Papyrae: Epilogue _ Minds.html
prev / first