+Gordon X. Frohman :)

Gordon X. Frohman Hahaha!!!😀

aud_io a great way of extending the life of the universe, but alas still does not prevent the inevitable end

aud_io to turn off the fusion reaction youd have to figure out a way to negate gravity, it's the gravitational pull of an star that makes the core dense enough to fuse, so in order to stop fusion youd have to cancel out all of the pressure caused by gravity

aud_io But you would increase entropy by trying to stop the fusion in stars. The energy it would take to do that, would probably be more than if we just let it happen.

Currently watching this for the exact same reason

Did entropy increase when you substituted an “i” in “thermodynamical” for the “y”? Or, maybe you’re an engineer, not an English major :) ?

I like how ppl complain about spelling, in a time when AI is almost ready to spell correct everything. Worrying about spelling is about the dumbest thing you can do. Also, I'm an astronaut millionaire.

@Quixote 🤓☝️

I wish we had KZhome when I did my physics degree thirty five years ago. It would have made many concepts less of a struggle to get my head around (And I probably would have got a higher classification!)

Surely you would have known this before studying that at uni, right?

I sometimes think earbud cords tangle even when they're not being jostled, just confined like in a desk drawer.

yeah but theres always lots of other orderly ways to have a pair of earbuds that aren't tangled. not just one...

Maybe entanglement is inverse to dimensionality. A loop in 3d becomes a knot when the dimensions are reduced to 2d under conditions of confinement like a backpack or desk drawer. Entropy means the knot or entanglement doesn't revert to a loop on re-exposure to 3d, so the cord is still in a tangle even after opening the desk drawer again.

that doesn't explain why you never plug usb the right way though

@Daniel Terra Sometimes you do, but it's less often than not, so that's what we remember. We're also tricked by our eyes, we think it should be a 50/50 chance that the USB is the correct way around, but it's one out of three: USB plugs are in fact four-dimensional objects, requiring you to turn it 180 degrees TWICE to rotate the plug to the superposition where it will fit the socket. ;)

Yes yes yes that's what im processing too!!

Definitely 😂 Heyy, Kayla. I know you from your studygram :))

don't worry you won't be around besides way before heat death occurs the Milky Way and our neighboring galaxy Andromeda will collide and our spec of a solar system will be no more. so don't fret ;)

@46 GOAT I doubt that. There's a uniqueness to our home system and should humanity exist by then (and I very much expect it should) we ought to have the technology and infrastructure to keep such an important star safe.

You won't live long enough for it to become a problem so relax

I don't like the disorder definition because it's easy to misconstrue and doesn't do a good job of giving someone an intuitive explanation of entropy, but it is correct. There are more ways to create "identical" disordered states than there are ways to create "identical" ordered states, but at that point why aren't you just giving the actual and correct Boltzmann definition? It's really not that hard to understand. You can even use dice to explain it, there's only 1 way to roll a 2, but there's 7 ways to roll a 7. Entropy is defined as the the number of ways you can get a particular "big picture" measurement. When you randomly roll 2 dies, you're more likely to roll a 7 than a 2. Congratulations, you just described both what entropy is and why the second law happens with nothing more than something everyone has seen and addition. It's even easy to relate it to Shannon entropy from here. And after revisiting this video after a year, I still don't like it. Maybe it's useful for the way an engineer thinks about thermodynamics, but it's useless for how a chemist thinks about it. Give me the boltzmann definition and I can instantly see that solids are lower entropy than gases, but this one? That's not at all clear.

It works when you're learning the statistical mechanical derivation of the Boltzmann equation. It's how we learned it at university.

It's a crappy description also because it's one word trying to represent a somewhat complex idea. I mean if someone asks you to define it you need to spend a little time explaining properly. If you are a professor standing at a chalk board you'd likely throw in some equations as well. And at the end of it, because as a society we have the attention of gold fish, we say something like, "Sooo... disorder?" And in frustration we say, "No, the answer is that thing I just took five minutes to tell you."

Ron Arguelles that’s how it was explained to me as a kid.

@Mezmorizorz Bouth is in same walue...

Yes and double that, because the reds could be on either side with the blues on the opposite side. But it is thoroughly dwarfed by the total number of overall possibilities. Statistics you are a cruel mistress! Great video thanks!

Great!

P Hampton I don't want to play with that fire too much, but there is following phenomena: syntropy. This the new organization. E.g. when one's organization gets bad, and it gets reorganized; etc...etc...

So... Battery charged: Low entropy Battery discharged: High entropy? So entropy is kind of the opposite of available energy?

Erick Lopes yep

@Erick Lopes Usable energy anyway. I suppose that's splitting hairs, though. Entropy increases as one runs steam through a turbine and enthalpy decreases. Then one condenses it and pumps it back to the boiler where entropy is decreased and enthalpy increased so it can be sent back to the turbine to do more useful work. Enthalpy is order and thus usable energy where entropy is disordered unusable energy.

The degree of disorder that qualifies as messy is subjective, but the fact that "less disorder is less messy" is the objective part. If someone splashed paint on your wall it would be considered messy, until you find out their name is Jackson Pollock. In that case, there are relatively few random configurations that are similar to this highly specific, one-of-a-kind work of art.

But Steve is an exception to the rule - he spreads the energy around all the time, but it never loses its magic.

Once we watched this video and understood it and are as clever as him in this particular 11:42 mins of subject, we will not watch it again, does that prove knowledge or emotional entropy

Space

+Dragos Puri thank you! I really like doing these explainer videos. Will do more I think.

I agree! This was beautifully explained. I am so glad I'm not the only one in conflict with the conventional definition of entropy.

Please do, they're great, this is my first time watching you(apart from brady's videos), and out of all the videos I watched on entropy(because I had difficulty accepting it) yours was THE BEST, even better than MITOCW.

Thank you Varad. Really appreciate comments like this.

This video explains thermodynamics wrong. It is obvious that Steve Mould doesn't understand the difference between temperature and thermal energy. If you have a material A with a very high thermal capacity next to a material B with a very low thermal capacity then A and B will try to reach the same temperature, but not the same energy dencity. So in other word you will find a huge gradient between the energy density of material A and B, even when they reach the same temperature. Lets say that material A is much more dence than B and both have the same bolume. This means that it is more likely that the energy will be transfered from B to A than from A to B. Because there is more mass in A than in B that can hold on to the energy. So in the end it is all about probability. It is more probable that the energy will be transfered to the material of high thermal capacity than the one with low thermal capacity. The most probable balance of energy depends on the laws that governs the universe. In the case of two simple materials like this it is governed by the laws that define the property of different materials. In a hypothetical case our universe could be governed by laws that we may not allready know of; very complex laws that states that our universe is allready existing in thermal equalibrium.

+Siddhant Chaudhari thank you :)

My basic understanding is a star being born from gravity is the clumping of entropy...

Michael Borne, If i understood the question, it Still wouldn't allow me an answer, ie: i don't know . . .

"For a closed system." If you leave that out, you fail.

The problem with Professors is that they think everyone understands what they are talking about instead of realizing in comparison to himself they are all a class of Chimps sitting in front of him, this is why I couldn't learn Algebra at school, I do understand it now as a good mate that could explain things the way Steve Mould does actually taught me Algebra it in about 10 minutes when I was 28 lol.

@Steve O'Hare congrats on finally learning algebra

It would be very nice if there was a universal law that said frustration would always tend to become dispersed. It seems the opposite may be true.

😄

+Angelo Collins thank you!

Thanks a lot for the video! I struggled to understand what entropy really is, when I was first introduced to it at University (I’m still in first year physics). After watching this video it makes so much sense now! The way you defined it relating to the spreading out of energy helped me so much!

how is aerospace @ Maryland? I'll be applying to colleges next fall, for Ms. tsm

sorry but the earth is flat

Information spread over degrees of freedom to be more specific :p

Yes. There is a great story about that. I think it was von Neuman who suggested that they call that Shannon's phenomena Entropy because of the similarity to the equations of (mechanical) entropy. So Shannon Entropy was discovered later and was only called Entropy as an analogy. But really it is more fundamental I think. You can explain thermodynamic Entropy in terms of Shannon Entropy but you can't really explain Shannon Entropy in terms of thermodynamic Entropy.

I'd never have thought of that! More like "why doesn't he take his face out of the way so I can see the engine". Thank God for the difference.

Well he looks at the engine so he can figure out how it works. But no matter how long a mans observations of a women, he knows he will never figure her out.

@The Mask you have touched on an excellent point..in fact females or shall we say gynovoltaic engines have typically taken all of the energy i have ever given them and efficiently shared it with the rest of the universe..relieving me of the burden of storing it. Thankyou ladies!

@Clutch Inson. I too have pumped a steady stream of explosive energy via ‘small bangs’ into a continuous array of gynovoltaic engines over time in my endeavour to understand the nature of the universe and experience entropy first hand.

Sean- one of my small bangs has grown big enough to borrow the car ! May you continue your explosive research..and may your experiements confirm and exceed your wildest hypothesis.

This video explains thermodynamics wrong. It is obvious that Steve Mould doesn't understand the difference between temperature and thermal energy. If you have a material A with a very high thermal capacity next to a material B with a very low thermal capacity then A and B will try to reach the same temperature, but not the same energy dencity. So in other word you will find a huge gradient between the energy density of material A and B, even when they reach the same temperature. Lets say that material A is much more dence than B and both have the same bolume. This means that it is more likely that the energy will be transfered from B to A than from A to B. Because there is more mass in A than in B that can hold on to the energy. So in the end it is all about probability. It is more probable that the energy will be transfered to the material of high thermal capacity than the one with low thermal capacity. The most probable balance of energy depends on the laws that governs the universe. In the case of two simple materials like this it is governed by the laws that define the property of different materials. In a hypothetical case our universe could be governed by laws that we may not allready know of; very complex laws that states that our universe is allready existing in thermal equalibrium.

Electro-Cute high energy density doesn't mean it will transfer more energy to a material of lower energy density at the same temperature, it just means it has more energy states accessible to store energy. Two touching materials at the same temperature will have an even energy transfer in a closed system no matter what their heat capacity is. Their energy content will not converge unless the materials themselves decay into each other to form a homogeneous spread of atoms.

I know that, it was allso kind of my point. Temperature is a thermodynamical perspective on a very simplified system. What the guy in the video said was that the systems will reach equal thermal energy distribution (or at least that is how I interpreted it). But that is only true for few special cases.

The context of the discussion and accompanying diagram make it clear that he is talking about two identical slabs of the same metal. He could, of course, divert to say that the thermal energy distribution would be different for slabs of different material but that would be unnecessary for this discussion (he's not talking about the relationship of thermal energy and temperature) and make the discussion overly complex.

@Andrew Robertson I don't agree that this is obvious, and even if it was how does this explanation explain what happens when the two metals aren't the same? That's not at all obvious to me, and at this point I've had about two years of thermodynamics classes ranging from gen chem to graduate level statistical mechanics. I don't see how someone who is totally ignorant of the topic is supposed to arrive at reasonable conclusions from it. But really, the most damning thing is that this video simply isn't an explanation for entropy. What he is describing is not entropy. He is describing a consequence of the concept of equally probable microstates that happens to work well for the few systems he described and few others.

Indeed, I heard something similar when talking about compression of data. In short more you compress data, more you are reducing orderly, predictable parts, which means if you compress something to maximum then all you are left with is pure chaos.