Peter Atkins - Entropy

[scar504]

Peter Atkins is a genius among geniuses.

[ragragdoll]

Amazing

[caseofthefunnies]

lol it looks like he gets punched in the stomach right when the video ends

[mattyisagod]

"god had a lot to do on the first day..."

*closes video*

[vinshuu]

@mattyisagod *Reads dumb comment...*

*votes down*

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

@mattyisagod lol

[bernhardfranz]

you sound like ... like ... like there was a concept of God behind things and like ... you woudl wobble a cracking moment looking at anything but at a physicsist paycheck and waste more thna 0.1 percent of time on making money as a physicist ....

[rentatrip1]

we suffer from YPORTNE - which is the collection of entropy development of entropy is YPORTNE - we need more YPORTNE-

[TomFynn]

You are making stuff up. Proof: “all of your statements is an evidence of narcissitic megalomania”

Ad hominem: The last refuge of the incompetent.



[334286]

What a load of rubbish!

[billytistrak]

Entropy is the state of energy consumed by time x space.

Atkins seems just like a child in understanding of thing, too much fixated on mystical atheism, disregarding focused scientific approach, toward thing and jumping into his "belief sanctuary" : Atheism

[TomFynn]

@billytistrak Entropy is a measure of the density of states or more generally a functional on probability distributions. It is *not* an energy. Upon melting the entropy of a material changes because the density of states accessible to the material are different for the melt than for the crystal.

Oh, and nothing mystical about atheism. Or Entropy.

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

Entropy is the negative sign of the energy of (matter x space x time). stating that as time increase space expands so the energy inside matter decreases.

Still atkins understadning is childish and Atheist-fixated when atheism is a fantasy story

and Yes it is Mystical because the Mysticsm is the "unknown-magic" of universe and existense that makes athiests "magic worshipers"

[TomFynn]

@balamanti2 A system of temperature T taking up an amount of energy dE will be able to convert that energy into mechanical work -pdV, while an amount of TdS will be "lost" to effect a change in entropy dS.

In statistical mechanics entropy is S=-k ln Omega where Omega denotes the number of all accessible states of equal probability. (k=1.38065×10^−23 J/K).

The expansion of space has nothing to do with it.

And the amount of energy E inside matter m is constant by E=mc^2.

(c=299792458 m/s)

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

the amount of energy E inside matter m is constant "

See how stupid you are, Entropy means the energy inside matter changes with time/space in other words, the subatomic particles loose their "relative momentum" in time/space frame they become slower and hence matter degrades this priciple is the main idea behind fission.

You obviously do not understand the equations your jotting ,

Energy inside matter is not constant in quantum & nuclear physics there is a different approach

[TomFynn]

@balamanti2 Sigh...fission does not mean a loss of energy. The energy is redistributed on the particles including photons. The discovery of the neutrino owes itself to this fact. Entropy is simply a measure of order/disorder. A change in entropy does not necessarily mean a change in energy.

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

Don't sigh too much, fission proves your previous statement is wrong. because energy inside of matter is not stable it depends on time/space hence the entropic principle in the quantum panorama is the measure of loss of energy be it temperature or "quantum energy" will change directly related to time/space.

"measure of order/disorder" does not make much sense, entropy originally try to explain why the universe is dying, why it gets colder, and why things decay with time.

[balamanti2]

@cntd

"A change in entropy does not necessarily mean a change in energy"

the concept and measurement of energy is directly related to (time x space x matter)

entropy as units is concerned it cancels out to simpler form of (time x space)

therefore entropy speaks indirectly directly about time x space change

[TomFynn]

@balamanti2 Energy is a quantity that measures the ability of system 1 to effect changes in system 2. Energy can be thus exchanged as work (Force x length), Heat (T x change in entropy) or simply by mass (E=mc^2). The unit of entropy is J/K, meaning energy per degree Kelvin .

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

2- "The unit of entropy is J/K, meaning energy per degree Kelvin"

it all boils down that

kelvin could be converted to kg X m^2 X sec^2

and heat as a unit is a relativistic unit of the expansion of mercury due to added heat (energy) so entropy is some how the ratio of energy/energy that changes in time

pooh

which is nothing but delta distance

so entropy will be a measure of time x space change

[TomFynn]

@balamanti2 kg X m^2 X sec^2 is Nms^4 and not a unit of energy. That would be Nm (or Joule) as for heat, which *is* a form of energy. Nothing relativistic about it. Relativistic corrections need to be considered for white dwarfs or neutron stars. And mercury shows a relative increase in volume of dV/V of of 181*10^-6 K^-1 upon a change in temperature. So no time x space change. Whatever that is supposed to mean.

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

'relativistic heat' because always heat is been measured relative to expansion of mercury. Which means (delta d of the length of matter) per Kg x m^2/Sec^2 input in the same matter

mercury change in volume is from input @ time =x to calculation @ time = X+T

dV means change in space during some time

so entropy is time x space change

[TomFynn]

@balamanti2 Relativistic generally means effects described by Einstein’s theory of relativity, not relative to something. Heat is a form of energy which can be exchanged between systems. Usually measured by differential scanning calorimeter or similar. Mercury expansion measures the temperature, which is a not an energy, but a state function of a system. The rest of your comment is pure gibberish.

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

"the temperature, which is a not an energy"

Temperature is directly related to energy,

what is a calorimeter but "delta distance in a scale" relative to change in energy ?

temperature is not exactly an energy but it is energy change that effects volume, or scale. This is not gibberish there there are "macro" physical concepts and formulas but there is "micro" physics which quantum physics tryies to find a way out of this labyrinth

[TomFynn]

@balamanti2 The temperature T is linked to the average energy per degree of freedom E via E=1.5 kT. If the temperature and thus the energy of condensed matter is increased, the volume change due to non-linearities in the inter-atomic potential.

The definitions of temperature and entropy are exactly the same for classical as for quantum physics. For an application of this see: Black-Body-Radiation.

A Calorimeter measures heat by measuring the energy needed to change the temperature.

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

why r u trying to catch your ear from the long side?



[TomFynn]

@balamanti2

In the history of non sequiturs this probably takes the biscuit. In short: WTF?

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

in the history of debaters yours is standard form : "argumentum-ignorum" = i ignore it; therefore it does not exist

[TomFynn]

@balamanti2

Pablo Yepes: which work?

Robin Collins: god-of-the-gaps-argument.

Hugh Ross: Creationist.

Templeton Award: awarded to someone who "has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works"- Atheists? Puh-leeze.

You mean: argumentum ad ignorantiam: a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa)?

Personally I find religious arguments really shallow.

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

Yepes: his works shows complexity & relationship in physical equation which stresses design

Ross & collins: lack of probabilistic resources to make blind chance account for biological and physical complexity

Templeton: So what , scholars who win this award are major achievers in their field why ignore their work?

"ignorum" : when presented 2a point that creates difficulty in ur arguments u decide to stride over it and ignor it

religion is shallow if you decide understand it shallowly

[TomFynn]

@balamanti2

Yepes: citation needed

Ross & Collins: Evolution is a non-random process. Read Dawkins.

Templeton: Because it’s an award for religion and not for science.

Difficult points? No. Irrelevant points? Yes.

There is nothing to understand about religion, it’s all made up.

[TomFynn]

@balamanti2

replying to your - invisible - comment "Yepes: read his works...has a side of spirtual evil":

Yepes: still no citation given.

Dawkins: Not scientific? LOL, ROFL, LMAO. Refuted? Citation needed. A layman? In what terms?

”spiritual evil”: LOL, ROFL, LMAO.

PS: as for lists of real scholars: Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

Dawkins is not scientific yes, when he states that all life forms is the the result of gradual mutation climbing his "imaginary mount probable" , or that birds evolved from squirrels, or that the eye inverted retina is poor design and evidence for 'random, these statements are not science are just anit-creation phantasy diatribes and yes all of them refuted, make your research I will not do this effort for you.

Yepes - ( you are trying to alter my post - i said he is in the list: DFD)

[TomFynn]

@balamanti2

Don’t worry, I will not make that “effort” either. You are just going on pro-creation fantasy diatribes. Oh, and birds evolved from dinosaurs (Haplocheirus sollers, 160 Mio years), get your facts straight.

Yepes : “Departed from Darwinism” yields 12 hits in Google, no list of scholars.

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

2nd the court order you are celebrating is not important. the important thing is that the logic behind atheism is failing.The fail of Darwinian mechanism evolution to account for life & variation species is growing, and the shame actually is on the "Darwinist" being scientism

3rd : ROL , LOL, ROFL & LMAO are not arguments

DFD (Departed From Darwinism) List of Science Academics,

Scientists, and Scholars Who are Skeptical of Darwinism

[balamanti2]

@balamanti2

4th: layman in philosophy yes, his philosophy books "the god delusion" is an outdated failing example of his poor arguments

[TomFynn]

@balamanti2

4th: If he's a layman so fucking what? The God Delusion, in a precise and methodical way, lists all the arguments against religion and asks all the right questions. Those questions that no religion ever will allow anyone to ask for fear of having to admit that religion could not answer them. Layman or not.

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

The God Delusion, is neither precise nor methodical it is just bunch of layman arguments from a person venting his diatribes. The book never answer any philosophical question nor has any essence of the main philosophical methodology nor touched any philosophical question yet shows more of the type that could be associated with a "impulsive anger" more like teen agers, and have presented the un-scholarly philosophies as science but came out as "sceintism"

[balamanti2]

'cntd'

moreover,

it clearly acts as a bigoted Anti-Arab/Islamic "pro-supermacist "sub-text" with sly way to maneuver basic social ethics (objective ethics) to try propagate & market the ethics of "no God" (No ethics of no God)when atheism denies objective ethics thus falling into many wicked - self contradictory arguments towards what is good and better? Hence, fails big time to be a respectable book and falls more into "Trolling" to get media attention & "sell"

[TomFynn]

@balamanti2

Sounds like a teenager venting his impulsive anger via diatribes. You wouldn’t happen to know which philosophical questions the book should have asked or what the essence of main philosophical methodology is? Scholarly speaking, I mean.

PS: Well I’ll be damned. There is scientism. And it is “the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life.” Damn straight.

[TomFynn]

@balamanti2

The fail of the creationist “mechanism” to account for variation and evolution of species is evident, and the shame is on Creationists calling themselves “scientists”.

“Departed from Darwinism” – 12 Google Hits, no list of scholars.

3rd: “spiritual evil” is not an argument, nor is saying “Dawkins is not scientific”

Court order: Aguillard got amicus curiae from 72 Nobel prize winners. You know, like *real* scholars?

PS: There is no such thing as scientism. Period.

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

Departed or "Dissent from Darwinism" - and it is a pity that you use this cheap way> When I am more than sure you knew what I mean, Your Darwinian Evolution failed to account for creation and variation of species under science scutny, and your beloved "scientismists" are just another 'wanna-be' gurus, apostles & even prophets the new religion they call atheism when atheism has its gods: Chance, Mutation, nature that fail to account for themselves

[TomFynn]

@balamanti2

Now it’s *Dissent*, eh? Told you, get your facts straight. Used in the 2005 Dover Trial, in which Creationism got deservedly thrashed? The list (from Discovery Institute) in which the statement was worded misleadingly, the associations of its signatories were fiddled and was claimed to include noble prize nominees although this is confidential for 50 years?

PS: More lists: A Scientific Support For Darwinism, Clergy Letter Project

PPS: Atheism has no gods. That’s its fucking point.

[TomFynn]

@balamanti2 The half live of nuclei depends on the type. Some decay, either by fission or emission of alpha or beta particles. Others - as the are the atoms that make up us - are stable, meaning a half life time on the order of the lifetime of the universe or greater. Entropy was originally by Clausius for thermodynamics (the age of steam engines) and Boltzmann for a statistical description of the microscopy behavior of the components of a system. Nothing quantum about it.

[TomFynn]

@balamanti2 Mysticism is the pursuit of communion with the divine. Magic is to claim altering things by supernatural means unknown to science.

Nothing to do with science or atheism. Both disregard or ignore the supernatural without positive evidence. Of which there is none.

The fantasy story here is Religion, which claims the existence of a supernatural dictator who has to be obeyed without ever knowing what He wants.

That is the ultimate fantasy.

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

Boy you are thick,

Atheists are perfect Mystical worshipers because they follow the unexplainable magic about nature that created everything from nothing.

Your gods, are (Nature, chance-in-the-gaps, mutation) these are you trinity of mysticism.

Now you want to be stubborn and act the goat that is different

[TomFynn]

@balamanti2 "God did it" is not an answer, since it explains not how God did it. And the "How" is what an explanations are all about. To accept "God" as an answer *is* mysticism.

Mutations happen.

Chance-in-the-gaps is what the Creationists are banging on about.

Nature is a metaphor. Nothing scientific about it.

Nature is a blanket term for that which exists. That is what science is all about.

Now you want to be stubborn and act the goat that is different

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

"God did it" is not an answer"

On the contrary , it is the only answer that makes sense and exceeds all the contradictions/fantasia/ of quantum theory and virtual physics/metaphysics

it is the best explanation and it is very logical

Atheists are stubborn and try to run a propaganda for political reasons

[TomFynn]

@balamanti2 Nothing logical about "God" since it doesn't explain *how* God did it. It is just a way of not having to admit "I don't know" by using what are supposed to sound like Big Words. It exceeds all the contradictions/fantasia/metaph­ysics. It is the ultimate fantasy.

Lots of Religilous are stubborn and *are* running propaganda for political reasons.

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

Nothing logical about "God" since it doesn't explain *how* God did it

you have fallen in two grave assumptions

1- you think you are more intelligent than God because you want to put God inside your head and - non the less- you are limiting God to your perception assuming that your perception is all there is hence also assume that ur perception is above all other perceptions

2- "How" could be never be satisfied except by transcendent supernatural goodness

[TomFynn]

@balamanti2 I gravely assume that what I see is all there is, until God comes by and explains to me in person how he did it. So far he - I further assume - hasn't found time in his busy schedule for popping over. Probably busy with keeping the universe running. You know checking the planets in their orbits, fissioning the atoms and all that general decaying.

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

"I gravely assume that what I see is all there is"

From this senstense you can see the circustantial evidence of an intelligent creator with good cause and intesions. if you do not want to be intelligent enough to calculate the odds any person claiming to be God and showing you how he did it could also be refuted. Circumstantial evidence & cumulative makes stronger conclusive evidence than confessions in the court of law. So that is why God did not write on the moon "God did it"

[TomFynn]

@balamanti2 "From this senstense you can see"

Sorry I wanted to reply, but from your sentence(s) I couldn't see anything.

PS: Were talking science here, the law's got nothing to to with that.

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

What I meant is that by your statement : "I gravely assume that what I see is all there is"

then you should have seen the evidence of a good,intelligent, creator with good cause and intension and a purpose for life.

By the so many facts of freedom, morality, mortality, sublimation, physical fine tuned laws, interdependence of life & organism, design, beauty, love etc...

[TomFynn]

@balamanti2

Freedom: A man-made concept.

Morality: See freedom, also: Golden Rule.

Design: See freedom.

Beauty: See freedom

Love: See freedom.

Sublimation: either thermodynamics or psychology.

Fine tuning: A fallacy. See Victor Stenger.

Interdependence of life & organism: Evolution

PS: Of all the above man-made concepts there is the opposite. Which would, by the same "logic", be evidence of a cruel and hateful creator.

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

Freedom is God made, because man did not create the universe with the laws it has nor her created social values, values are discovered, the were put by the transcendent creator ( God)

Freedom is the main ingredient to morality both of which created the biggest problem for human motivation, actions, life, rewards, punishment & death.

Beauty, is part of faculty built in our souls and minds that appreciates goodness & design it is not made by man

beauty is a "pointer" towards God

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

"Sublimation" is the innate ability to go above materialistic concept, be it in psychology it points upwards towards higher realm i.e the atheistic "survival of the fittest" towards goodness beyond.

Sublimation in physics is a property put by God the creator as part of his wondrous design, that would also serve as an evidence or hint towards what things we are going to be & look forward to after life in the world.

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

"be evidence of a cruel and hateful creator."

by stating that the creator is cruel you are assuming you know what is good and what is bad.

but how can you be better than your creator?

Yes "nature" is cruel, hateful, but through spiritual light we sublimate our "materialistic" vision & open up to ultimate good realm. This will reconcile you with existence & the creator. 

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

how can you be sane and say "Love" is man made?

God is love, and gave us the grace of love.

Any other concept that denies love as God made will take us to death, hatefulness & hell,

Love makes everything in life, love motivates, love creates relationships, beauty, and this is not made by man, it is there before the world was created.

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

Anyway all of your statements is an evidence of narcissitic megalomania that worships man and assumes that man is god

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

Interdependence of life & organism: Evolution

NO

evolution is a big time & big fail to account for interdependence because interpedepance means they have to be present at the same time

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

Fine tuning: A fallacy.

No !

Victor Stenger. ideas was found to have everal fundamental flaws

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

" Mysticism is the pursuit of communion with the divine."

No ! Mysticism is not exclusive to "divine"

Mysticism = mystical = unknown and magic= unknown.

Mystical could be could also be nature, "natural divinity", the atheist trinity of "Nature-Chance-mutation", the "mystical nature" of atheist the put their hopes into, and worship

[TomFynn]

@balamanti2 Call it want you want, Mysticism claims to be about that which is beyond science and reason. It claims not only be about that which is unknown but also about that which is unknowable to science.

Claims which - so far - have not been backed up.

There is no atheist trinity. Period.

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

Boy you are really stubborn.

The story of creation of atheists is : "it rained over the rock for millions of years"

so "Nature" + "Random" + "Mutation" created man therefore

they are your god. Period

[TomFynn]

@balamanti2 Victor Stenger is a physicist with 50 years of research in elementary particle under his belt.

Proven wrong by whom? Weinberg? Hawkins?

Don't tell me you mean William Lane Craig.

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

Victor Stenger has several fundamental flaws, and the multi verse theory is criticized by numerous scholars.

Firsts it assumes space/time to create universes of space and time. It does not explain why rules are created, and maintained, it assumes chaos that creates, it self contradicts itself

I will give few scholars other than the one you mentioned who have works that diminishes Stenger ideas:

Frank J. Tipler, Robin Collins, pablo yepes, Hugh Ross, Martin Rees, Paul Davies etc...

[TomFynn]

@balamanti2

What’s the multiverse got on this? That was invented to explain the mysteries of quantum mechanics. As for your scholars:

Omega Point: Mysticism, wrapped up in an enema.

Robin Collins: Messiah College, puh-leeze.

Pablo Yepes: Heavy-Ion physicist at Rice. No papers on multiverses.

Hugh Ross: Creationist. See: Collins.

Martin Rees: He came up with the bloody numbers in the first place.

Paul Davies: Winner of 1M$ Templeton Award. ‘Nuff said.

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

This does not make Stenger right and the others wrong.

Personally I found that his atheistic arguments really shallow

[balamanti2]

@TomFynn

" Magic is to claim altering things by supernatural means"

No! magical means, mysterious things, unknown, dark power, anit-God. putting the word "supernatural" is just too sly

In the Atheist creation story : Nature came to being from nothing; Nature is "natural" (the laws came by random of "nothing") or by mysterious mystical nature-magic. Underneath this "nothing" lies "magic" , underneath this "nature" lies "magic" - underneath this "evolution lies magic & magic always anti-God

[ZionistReptilianXenu]

All these Christians keep posting negative comments on Dr Atkins videos because they don't understand what he's talking about. They got a small taste of his theories in his debate against William Lane Craig (which was 12 years ago), didn't understand what he was saying, and now go around on every Peter Atkins video trying to prove him wrong. Having said that that, considering Craig is still using the same argument, it must have all went straight over his head as well.

[ereidhead]

...I appreciate your demonstration of Entropy Professor Atkins :)... what a great contribution to my understanding of my Universe...

[sek3009]

douche

[jahchild1904]

The fact that he is still babbling on with such nonsense proves that there is energy and it can be wasted. Just because the energies balance out to zero doesn't mean they don't exist. 1 billion - 1 billion = 0, but rearrange this and it becomes 1 billion = 1 billion. Therefore we have 1 billion of one thing and 1 billion of whatever cancels it out to zero.

[jedah998]

God DAMMIT!!!! SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!! Why can't I find out what Entropy is in mutherfucking simple English. It's no fair. Oh well. That's like 7 hours that I wasted.

[ErnestoGomezSantan]

My dear marco054:

Is it possible for you to upload the rest of this extremely interesting and fascinating talk? I very much would like to hear how much Dr. Atkins improved his arguments for ex nihilo beginnings, which I have read in his masterwork Creation, and of which he admits were a little too much speculative.

[hyperseauton]

Atkins is out of his mind in thinking that physics and science does, or even can in principle answer the question why there is anything as opposed to nothing.

This would be by definition a philosophical question and is not answered by science presently, Atkins is a bad physical chemist when he claims that science does. Nor do I think it can be answered by assuming scientific materialism.

[socratus1]

Henry Poincare named the conception of "entropy "

as a " surprising abstract " Lev Landau wrote:

" A question about the physical basis of the

entropy monotonous increasing law remains open "

Henry Poincare named the conception of "entropy "

as a " surprising abstract "

One physicist said :" The entropy is only a shadow of energy

Why ?

[marco054]

They may have said that because entropy in itself isn't anything. It's the disorder in systems. Order or disorder is relative to each other. You can't point out order or disorder in itself, to see one you have to refer to the other. That's what "shadows" are. The 2nd law is about a closed system tending to increase disorder, entropy. The "physical basis" for this is not that it has been proven by experiments but that it explains numerous observations. That's the physical basis.

[luitzenhietkamp]

@marco054 That's not entirely true. Entropy is a measurement of the multiplicity of a system. Even if you don't have any other system to compare, you can still compute the entropy if you know the multiplicity of the system.

[marco054]

@luitzenhietkamp

You're entirely right.

[dewonthegrass]

I greatly admire Peter Atkins. I have his book (and read it) "Galileo's Finger", great book.

Good video! 5*

[LionKing024]

Entropy is very interesting

[napalmcoffee]

entropy is my favorite word

[bubb1etea]

Wonderful imagery, he made it all seem so simple. Also it is good to put a face to the name on the books lol. Before he had always just been a hefty book that sometimes came with a Shriver too haha.