Hello David,

You are welcome!

Shufeng Zhang

Um, I might be wrong, but I believe entropy was never a "Physical Quantity" so much as an effect that defined the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

In my lexicon, Entropy is just the inverse of the rule that "Energy flows to the adjacent area of least energy"

When inverted the law states that nothing can move without dispersing energy in what way would this be a "Physical Quantity"? the physical quantity is the Energy, the Entropy is merely the way that energy acts.

The assumption that entropy is a form of disorder, inherent in some theorists work, is based on a misconception about the nature of Order, that was created in the Steam Era. It was noted that as things cooled they tended to become hard and then brittle, and then break down into smaller parts. This was seen as them becoming less orderly. However, when things are heated up, they become softer, eventually either char, or become liquid, become extremely active and boil and then become gasseous, and latter research has suggested that the dynamism of a hot gas is higher than that of a cold crystal. In other words Order is bounded on both sides by thermodynamic conditions that trend to disorder, and the disorder is not directly related to the entropy, so much as to some composite factor, possibly of energy and entropy combined. Wolframs work with 4th level cellular automata, suggests that in fact Order might fall into Bands separated by dynamic chaos as an oscillation within an incremental system.

Can your Mathematics capture THAT relationship?

Hi Graeme Smith,

welcome!

From your profile, it seems that you don't major in physics, so, I don't think it is easy you understanding such content.

certainly, if you are interested in physics or good at it, you can read this paper before discussing. do you agree this?

There exist a relation between entropy and entanglement and a relation between entanglement and probability. The lesser the randomness of phases of waves, the more entanglement occurs. See papers about the Bekenstein bound, articles about the holographic principle or more fundamentally, what wiki says about von Neumann's entropy.

Hi Hans van Leunen,

welcome!

It seems that what you said has nothing to do with this paper, don't you think so?

If your statement is that entropy is not a physical quantity, then von Neumann's entropy proves the converse.

Hi Hans van Leunen,

This paper had thoroughly negated entropy.

It seems that you didn't read this paper or didn't understand it.

There exist a law in classical logic saying that if you start from something that is false, you can derive anything from it. If you start from the wrong definition of entropy then you can derive a lot of false propositions that seems valid, you can even derive proper propositions but the last only increase the mislead of the first category. Maybe you should replace Boltzmann's definition with von Neumann's definition, which is more fundamental. The holographic principle shows that entropy has some very strange habits that are far from intuitive.

norlabs.org belongs/belonged to the moderator of this discussion group

Hi Filippo Salustri and Hans van Leunen,

As you know, this is a place for members to discuss scientific questions, so, what we should discuss is technical questions, but not general comments, do you agree?

(to Hans van Leunen, thank you for you tell us that norlabs.org belongs/belonged to the moderator of this discussion group.)

you are welcome.

Hi Filippo Salustri ,

Ok, I think I know what you mean, but they do did not put forward technical questions ON MY PAPER, this is why I said “ general comment”.

Information in nature is a discrete quantity. Its smallest size (other than zero) is set by the Planck length (squared). Entropy is directly related with it. It is also a discrete quantity. Thus the integrals in your paper must stick to summations. This does not conflict with the fact that entropy is a proper physical quantity. It only states that it is no continuous quantity. So it is no wonder that integrals may raise conflicts. Your conclusions from this fact are wrong. You should have concluded that the conflicts form an indication that entropy is a discrete quantity.

oh Hans van Leunen,

If you think you are talking about physics technical questions ( especially on this paper), I'm left speechless !

With respect to classical mechanics quantum mechanics indeed opens a new world

As for you say "respect", I want to say :Plato is dear to me, but dearer still is truth.

We seem to have a language problem

oh, maybe.

“ if you start from something that is false, you can derive anything from it.”，this law is just suitable to "entropy", because "entropy" just started from a false, then, many things was derived so far.

In set theory you start from an empty set and you can build up representatives of all possible members of the latiice of sets. In logic you start in the top of the lattice: the overall thruth. If you start from the bottom you got nonsense and you are determined to always stay with that. Entropy is about information. It is not about logic. The human kind of reasoning uses a logic that has a lattice structure, which is isomorph with the lattice of sets. Physics has its own kind of logic, which has a weaker lattice structure Its propositions are isomorphic to the lattice formed by the closed subspaces of a Hilbert space. This fact is the cause of the large difference between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. It is also the reason why entanglement exists and why entrophy does not behave in a way that is intuitive to humans.

oh Hans van Leunen,

I think I should remind that this paper is physics.

Quantum mechanics and classical mechanics both are sections of physics. Thermodynamics is still another section. Quantum logic and Hilbert spaces are mathematical tools, which are used in quantum physics.

http://www.Wikipedia.com is a fine resource, where you can get an enormous amount of information about each of these concepts.

Hi Hans van Leunen,

Thanks.

I know wikipedia.

I wonder whether you have read my paper.

I have studied your paper and reacted on the points that stroke my interest. My idea is that you take the wrong conclusion. In any case you did not support that conclusion with proper and well founded reasoning. You put that conclusion already in the title. This immediately draws my suspicion.

Hi Hans van Leunen,

As you know, that is a paper here, it is a demonstration.

Could you give your retort on this paper in physics ?

Attention：IN PHYSICS ！

Please give your specification of what you understand by physics.

See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_physics

I consider the definition of entropy in quantum physics more fundamental than its specification in thermodynamics.

In 2.1 you derive Q2/Q1 = T2/T1 gives Q1/T1+Q2/T2 = 0. This is a false conclusion when Q1/T1 ≠ 0. You do this again in formula 2.2.9.

Hi Hans van Leunen,

It is odd that YOU SAID:"In 2.1 you derive Q2/Q1 = T2/T1 gives Q1/T1+Q2/T2 = 0. This is a false conclusion when Q1/T1 ≠ 0. You do this again in formula 2.2.9. "

It seems that you are talking about the condition of Carnot cycle in textbooks, and you assert that the content in thermodynamics textbooks is false. Do you know?

What was that all about?

From pure mathematics you can only conclude Q2/T2 = Q1/T1 and not Q1/T1+Q2/T2 = 0 when Q1/T1 ≠ 0. So you say math is wrong?

Anisotropy is a fact. Lack of (partial) isotropy is a concrete event. Such a state has been mixed up/confused with a misunderstanding reified by the name of “entropy”.