Post New

Post Reply

Reply Later

Create Poll
No. of Recommendations: 0
Here is my theory, please refute it if you can.
If you examine any physical system, it has an entropy associated with it. The theory is there is another probability metric you can assign to the system, which I will call Y as short for Yttire.
The Y is not equal to the entropy. It has no relationship, except that it is also a probability metric.
If you examine a closed room of deterministically moving atoms all starting in a corner they will drift around to fill the room. This is entropy at its finest. However its Y is 1.0 the atoms are moving deterministically and have a 1.0 probability of being where they are at any particular time.
Not all systems are deterministic and our universe appears to not be a deterministic system. Therefore the Y of our system is not 1.0.. nor is it constantly moving towards higher probability or lower probability. Entropy must move towards more disorder. Y does not necessarily.
If you are curious to hear more, drop a note or question and I'll answer it.
(This was my PhD thesis many years ago, which got nuked because no one could understand it.. go figure)
Post New

Post Reply

Reply Later

Create Poll
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yttire,
How does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle fit into this theory? I'm not a physicist, but I do believe that states there is a limited probability of finding a particle in a given location. But that probability is not 1, it is not deterministic. Please enlighten.
Ott
Post New

Post Reply

Reply Later

Create Poll
No. of Recommendations: 1
Thanks for you question.
This is a very good question. It is such a good question, I will not be able to answer it to your satisfaction I am afraid, but I will try.
I applied the theory to abstract computational systems (I was in computer science) and it is applicable to our universe, but my knowledge of our universal laws is not as robust as I would like. I studied Y in theoretic mathematical spaces, and then attempted to understand it in terms of our own physical universe.
With that caveat, in my research of understood universal laws most of physics is deterministic. In fact, the predominance of physics taught in universities is concentrated on determinism, and I think this stems from Newton arguably the founder of modern science and that his theory was founded on the principals of determinism.
However, of course, the exception as it is understood at this time is quantum mechanics. So therefore, the only place Y can change in our universe is with quantum mechanics! Note it is irrelevant which laws are deterministic and which are not we can still assess the Y of the system. However, it appears we have a decent grasp of much of the physical law which surrounds us, making it easier to assess Y.
The first form of quantum mechanics was "matrix mechanics" and difficult to visualize or for physicists to comprehend.
I believe Schrödinger came up with an alternative representation which became was much easier to understand and popularized. It was, as I understand, a different mathematical formulation of the same concepts, but in a more palatable form to the physics community. These both were later reworked to the modern theory of quantum mechanics by Dirac and others.
Hiesenberg, studying the quantum mechanic equations noted that there was inherent indeterminancy in the equations. The Hiesenberg uncertainy principal states that "The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa. "
Fundamentally the outcome was the same of all these mathematical shennanigans there is real indeterminancy in our universe. It only appears on the very submicroscopic scale. These submicroscopic events can impinge on the macroscopic world, but only in special situations.
But, as it relates to measuring Y they are the only events which can change Y. (That is, until some new physical phenomena is quantified, which also could influence it.)
One place this apparently has occurred is in the very early formation of our universe. In big bang theory, the universe starts out completely isotropic and homogeneous the same in all dimensions. Yet the stars and planets and galaxies formed. How is this possible? The only way for this to be possible is for either the universe to have not started completely homogeneous or for something to break this early symmetry. It appears, in some physicists minds in papers I have read that quantum uncertainty is what provided the assymetry required to form gravitational centers about which the early structure of the universe was defined. This then would be one point where sub microscopic events impinge on the gross macroscopic world we see every day in helping determine the assymmetry which allowed the formation of galaxies and stars.