the terroristic nimbus of the second law
galathaea
language and scientific recognition
are intimately linked
fundamental laws
are ascribed a number of names over the languages
identifying different people credited
for first or best by each culture
often there is an ethnocentrism
one particular case i admire
is found in the case of johann josef loschmidt
in 1861 he published " chemische studien "
proposing chemical structures for many substances
including benzene
for which kekule's 1865 dream is often credited
loschmidt was first to propose many things
loschmidt was first to derive
the number of molecules in one cubic centimeter
of ideal gas
and using avogadro's principle
he was first to calculate the quantitative value
that is now commonly called " avogadro's number "
but in german often " loschmidt'sche zahl "
.
he also proposed a way to violate the second law
-+-+-
gravity is the violator
maxwell, boltzmann, and loschmidt would argue
about temperature stratification in columns of gas
boltzmann and maxwell argued the column
must be the same temperature
loschmidt argued the column mst be warmer near the bottom
and cooler towards the top
they all agreed that if it was stratified
it would allow a perpetuum mobile of the second kind
loschmidt believed he had found a foreversource of energy
to free humanity of " the terroristic nimbus of the second law "
^*^*^*^*^*^*..
roederich graeff has performed that experiment
and carefully noted a repeatable stratification
molecular simulations have predicted stratification
andreas trupp has derived it from very basic physics
http://users.aol.com/atrupp/loschmidt01.pdf
and there is even suggestion
that the troposphere of venus also evidences this stratification
..&%&%&%&%&%&%
so loschmidt is one of those
" respectable " physicists stutter nervously about
definitely a very bright man with many acheivements
( but none that should be commonly accepted as his in english )
a very punk lifestyle
son of bohemian farmers
challenging the orthodoxy of his friends
speaking the unspeakables
;;
there is no shame in pursuing possibility
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
Publius
10.0.1.2:
> one particular case i admire
> is found in the case of johann josef loschmidt
>
> in 1861 he published " chemische studien "
> proposing chemical structures for many substances
>
> including benzene
> for which kekule's 1865 dream is often credited
Yikes! I can't cite that anecdote anymore?
Jeff…Relf
If the concordance model of cosmology ( Lambda_CDM ) is to be believed,
then the known Universe is ever-dissipating, ever " consumed ".
I think of entropy as " the consumption of cosmic Gibbs Free Energy ".
That's what created us, and what eventually consume us.
Each of us has a finite mass, volume and duration.
Eric Gisse
> Hi Galathaea,
> If the concordance model of cosmology ( Lambda_CDM ) is to be believed,
> then the known Universe is ever-dissipating, ever " consumed ".
>
> I think of entropy as " the consumption of cosmic Gibbs Free Energy ".
Gibbs free energy is a function of entropy, idiot.
JohnKuthe
Entropy! The tendency that everything follows towards a state of
disorder!
That's how I finally knew I was doing it CORRECT! ;-)
John Kuthe...
gdew...@gmail.com
Jeff…Relf
I should've said:
There's no end to entropy,
no end to " the consumption of cosmic energy ".
" Life " has no purpose, just " sustained consumption ".
The cosmos is truly causal ( i.e. falsely random ),
so all changes ( including so-called choices ) are nominal.
Time is truly spatial ( i.e. falsely directional ).
Autymn D. C.
kunzmilan
> On Mar 4, 10:53 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 4, 7:47 pm, Jeff...Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
>
> > > Hi Galathaea,
> > > If the concordance model of cosmology ( Lambda_CDM ) is to be believed,
> > > then the known Universe is ever-dissipating, ever " consumed ".
>
> > > I think of entropy as " the consumption of cosmic Gibbs Free Energy ".
>
> > Gibbs free energy is a function of entropy, idiot.
>
> > > That's what created us, and what eventually consume us.
> > > Each of us has a finite mass, volume and duration
>
> Entropy! The tendency that everything follows towards a state of
> disorder!
polynomial coefficient. This coefficient mesures the symmetry of a gas
in the phase space. At 0 K, the entropy is in its lowest state (the
identity). Growing entropy is connected with the growing number of
possible states, thus with greater symmetry.
kunzmilan
Jeff…Relf
" At 0 K, the entropy is in its lowest state ".
Wrong.
The beam of an ideal laser is at absolute zero,
but redshifting the beam _ Raises _ its entropy.
Jeff…Relf
but redshifting the beam _ Raises _ its entropy. "
I should've said... Energy tends to dissipate.
Entropy is the _ Spontaneous _ dispersal of energy.
Entropy is spent energy.
For example, 13.7 Giga_Years ago the CMB blackbody radiation
was 3 thousand Kelvin... today it's 3 Kelvin...
The energy of the known Universe is continually being consumed.
galathaea
>
> ^*^*^*^*^*^*..
>
> roederich graeff has performed that experiment
> and carefully noted a repeatable stratification
>
> molecular simulations have predicted stratification
>
> andreas trupp has derived it from very basic physics
>
> http://users.aol.com/atrupp/loschmidt01.pdf
>
> and there is even suggestion
> that the troposphere of venus also evidences this stratification
>
> ..&%&%&%&%&%&%
>
> so loschmidt is one of those
> " respectable " physicists stutter nervously about
> definitely a very bright man with many acheivements
> ( but none that should be commonly accepted as his in english )
>
> a very punk lifestyle
> son of bohemian farmers
> challenging the orthodoxy of his friends
>
> speaking the unspeakables
>
> ;;
>
> there is no shame in pursuing possibility
still being very naive about this whole crackpot / crank thing
i accidentally let the engineer inside think too hard about this
since my degree is in physics simulations
and my career is in programming
and i happened to have a simulation generator i have been building
i generated a simulation for a gas in a column with gravity
the simulation generator is my attempt at building
a commercially viable product at home
and although it still needs much work
and doesn't generate the prettiest code yet
i couldn't help seeing what it would give me here
i have run some simulations
playing around with the specifications
and all my tests have validated loschmidt so far
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE TEMPERATURE AT THE BOTTOM IS HOTTER THAN AT TOP
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
of course this seemed obvious to me
because gravity accelerates particles moving down the column
and slows them moving up
but there is nothing better than seeing it validated in a simulation
now
currently particle collisions are very rare
( due to size of particles and iteration delta )
and i haven't fully tested that handling yet
so the values are not mixing the z components with the x,y
collisions with the wall only affect x,y
collisions with the floor or ceiling only affect z
but i will play with that some more
i have hand entered some comments
and added output of the simulation
( the generator creates blanket output for the specification
but litle descriptive output currently )
anyways
i cannot stress that i am well aware
of many of the refactorings needed in this code
as the generator placed code in places i normally wouldn't
also since it was working with a larger model
it has some stuff that can be completely refactored out
despite that
here is my generated loschmidt simulation
( in c++, from a generator written in OCaml )
in one large file format (the only working generation right now)
this may get mercilessly chopped by google (sorry)
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <cmath>
#include <string>
#include <sstream>
#include <exception>
#include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp>
#include <boost/random.hpp>
namespace
{
// math
double pi(3.14159265358);
// particle descriptors
unsigned numberOfParticles(1000);
double particleMass(1.67372e-24); // (kg)
double particleRadius(2.4e-11); // (m)
// environment
double columnRadius(20.); // (m)
double columnHeight(100.); // (m)
// energetics
double temperature(273.15); // (K) = 0(C)
double boltzmann_k(1.3806505e-23); // (J/K)
double sigma(std::sqrt(boltzmann_k * temperature /
particleMass)); // ~ 47.468
// gravity
double g(-9.807); // (m/s)
}
double distance(double x, double y)
{
return std::sqrt(x * x + y * y);
}
double distance(double x, double y, double z)
{
return std::sqrt(x * x + y * y + z * z);
}
struct Point3D
{
Point3D() :
x_(),
y_(),
z_()
{}
Point3D(double x, double y, double z) :
x_(x),
y_(y),
z_(z)
{}
double x_;
double y_;
double z_;
};
struct Velocity3D : Point3D
{
Velocity3D()
{}
Velocity3D(double x, double y, double z) :
Point3D(x, y, z)
{}
};
enum CollisionType
{
column,
particle
};
class Existent
{
public:
Existent(Point3D const& initialPosition,
Velocity3D const& initialVelocity,
double mass,
std::string const& name) :
position_(initialPosition),
velocity_(initialVelocity),
mass_(mass),
name_(name)
{}
double x() const
{
return position_.x_;
}
void x(double x)
{
position_.x_ = x;
}
double y() const
{
return position_.y_;
}
void y(double y)
{
position_.y_ = y;
}
double z() const
{
return position_.z_;
}
void z(double z)
{
position_.z_ = z;
}
double vx() const
{
return velocity_.x_;
}
void vx(double vx)
{
velocity_.x_ = vx;
}
double vy() const
{
return velocity_.y_;
}
void vy(double vy)
{
velocity_.y_ = vy;
}
double vz() const
{
return velocity_.z_;
}
void vz(double vz)
{
velocity_.z_ = vz;
}
double m() const
{
return mass_;
}
std::string name() const
{
return name_;
}
virtual bool isCollided(boost::shared_ptr<Existent> otherEntity)
const = 0;
virtual CollisionType collisionType() const = 0;
private:
Point3D position_;
Velocity3D velocity_;
double mass_;
std::string name_;
};
class Particle : public Existent
{
public:
Particle(
Point3D const& initialPosition,
Velocity3D const& initialVelocity,
double radius,
double mass,
std::string const& name) :
Existent(initialPosition, initialVelocity, mass, name),
radius_(radius)
{}
double radius() const
{
return radius_;
}
virtual bool isCollided(boost::shared_ptr<Existent> otherEntity)
const
{
// a particle can only be a first entity if the second is also a
particle
if (distance(x() - otherEntity->x(), y() - otherEntity->y(), z() -
otherEntity->z()) <
(radius() + boost::static_pointer_cast<Particle>(otherEntity)-
>radius()))
{
if (name() == "0")
std::cout << "particle on particle action" << std::endl;
return true;
}
return false;
}
virtual CollisionType collisionType() const
{
return particle;
}
private:
double radius_;
};
class EnclosingColumn : public Existent
{
public:
EnclosingColumn(double radius, double height) :
Existent(Point3D(), Velocity3D(), 0., "column"),
radius_(radius),
height_(height)
{}
virtual bool isCollided(boost::shared_ptr<Existent> otherEntity)
const
{
// otherEntity must always be a particle!
if (distance(otherEntity->x(), otherEntity->y()) > (radius_ -
boost::static_pointer_cast<Particle>(otherEntity)->radius()))
{
if (otherEntity->name() == "0")
std::cout << "collision with wall of column" << std::endl;
return true;
}
else if (otherEntity->z() > (height_ -
boost::static_pointer_cast<Particle>(otherEntity)->radius()))
{
if (otherEntity->name() == "0")
std::cout << "collision with ceiling" << std::endl;
return true;
}
else if (otherEntity->z() <
boost::static_pointer_cast<Particle>(otherEntity)->radius())
{
if (otherEntity->name() == "0")
std::cout << "collision with floor" << std::endl;
return true;
}
return false;
}
virtual CollisionType collisionType() const
{
return column;
}
private:
double radius_;
double height_;
};
class PhysicalWorld
{
public:
typedef std::vector<boost::shared_ptr<Existent> > Existents;
Existents::iterator begin()
{
return existents_.begin();
}
Existents::iterator end()
{
return existents_.end();
}
void pushBack(boost::shared_ptr<Existent> existent)
{
existents_.push_back(existent);
}
private:
Existents existents_;
};
struct StrataProfile
{
StrataProfile() :
temperatureAccumulatorX_(),
temperatureAccumulatorY_(),
temperatureAccumulatorZ_(),
count_()
{}
void add(double tx, double ty, double tz)
{
temperatureAccumulatorX_ += tx;
temperatureAccumulatorY_ += ty;
temperatureAccumulatorZ_ += tz;
++count_;
}
double temperatureAccumulatorX_;
double temperatureAccumulatorY_;
double temperatureAccumulatorZ_;
unsigned count_;
};
class PhysicsEngine
{
public:
PhysicsEngine(PhysicalWorld & world, double final, double delta) :
world_(world),
time_(0.),
final_(final),
delta_(delta)
{}
double time() const
{ return time_; }
double delta() const
{ return delta_; }
void cycle()
{
time_ += delta_;
}
void run()
{
std::cout << "entering the run loop" << std::endl;
// full run statistics
StrataProfile top;
StrataProfile bottom;
// main event loop
while (time_ < final_)
{
std::cout << "^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ loop time " << time_ << "
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^" << std::endl;
// check for collisions first as initial adjustment of velocity
for (PhysicalWorld::Existents::iterator
initialIntersector(world_.begin());
initialIntersector != world_.end();
++initialIntersector)
{
if ((initialIntersector + 1) != world_.end())
{
//std::cout << "-" << std::flush;
for (PhysicalWorld::Existents::iterator
secondIntersector(initialIntersector + 1);
secondIntersector != world_.end();
++secondIntersector)
{
//std::cout << "+" << std::flush;
if (collision(initialIntersector, secondIntersector))
{
//std::cout << "collision" << std::endl;
adjustFromCollision(initialIntersector,
secondIntersector);
}
}
}
}
// then cycle through each and adjust their final positions and
force changes to velocity
for (PhysicalWorld::Existents::iterator
existent(world_.begin());
existent != world_.end();
++existent)
{
adjustFreeMoving(existent);
}
// and cycle the time
cycle();
// now we can snapshot the new state
// follow a particle
PhysicalWorld::Existents::iterator existent(world_.begin() + 1);
std::cout << "particle 1's iterated state:"
<< "\n x: " << (*existent)->x()
<< "\n y: " << (*existent)->y()
<< "\n z: " << (*existent)->z()
<< "\n vx: " << (*existent)->vx()
<< "\n vy: " << (*existent)->vy()
<< "\n vz: " << (*existent)->vz() << std::endl;
// and build temperature profile
unsigned strata(5);
std::vector<StrataProfile> temperatures(strata);
while (existent != world_.end())
{
unsigned particularStrata(((*existent)->z() * 5.0) /
columnHeight);
if (particularStrata >= strata)
particularStrata = strata - 1;
if (particularStrata < 0)
particularStrata = 0;
double tx((*existent)->m() * (*existent)->vx() * (*existent)-
>vx() / boltzmann_k);
double ty((*existent)->m() * (*existent)->vy() * (*existent)-
>vy() / boltzmann_k);
double tz((*existent)->m() * (*existent)->vz() * (*existent)-
>vz() / boltzmann_k);
temperatures[particularStrata].add(tx, ty, tz);
++existent;
}
for (unsigned stratum(0); stratum < strata; ++stratum)
{
std::cout << "in stratum " << stratum << " there were " <<
temperatures[stratum].count_ << " particles" << std::endl;
if (temperatures[stratum].count_)
{
double tx(temperatures[stratum].temperatureAccumulatorX_ /
temperatures[stratum].count_);
double ty(temperatures[stratum].temperatureAccumulatorY_ /
temperatures[stratum].count_);
double tz(temperatures[stratum].temperatureAccumulatorZ_ /
temperatures[stratum].count_);
std::cout << " tx: " << tx
<< " ty: " << ty
<< " tz: " << tz
<< " Tavg: " << ((tx + ty + tz) / 3.) << std::endl;
if (0 == stratum)
bottom.add(tx, ty, tz);
else if ((strata - 1) == stratum)
top.add(tx, ty, tz);
}
else std::cout << "no temperature information possible" <<
std::endl;
}
}
// dump full run statistics
double txTop(top.temperatureAccumulatorX_ / top.count_);
double tyTop(top.temperatureAccumulatorY_ / top.count_);
double tzTop(top.temperatureAccumulatorZ_ / top.count_);
double txBottom(bottom.temperatureAccumulatorX_ / bottom.count_);
double tyBottom(bottom.temperatureAccumulatorY_ / bottom.count_);
double tzBottom(bottom.temperatureAccumulatorZ_ / bottom.count_);
std::cout << "over the simulation we have"
<< "\ntop strata of the column - tx: " << txTop << " ty: " <<
tyTop << " tz: " << tzTop << " Tavg: " << ((txTop + tyTop + tzTop) /
3.)
<< "\nbottom strata of the column - tx: " << txBottom << " ty: "
<< tyBottom << " tz: " << tzBottom << " Tavg: " << ((txBottom +
tyBottom + tzBottom) / 3.)
<< std::endl;
}
private:
bool collision(PhysicalWorld::Existents::iterator object1,
PhysicalWorld::Existents::iterator object2)
{
return (*object1)->isCollided(*object2);
}
virtual void adjustFromCollision(PhysicalWorld::Existents::iterator
object1, PhysicalWorld::Existents::iterator object2) = 0;
virtual void adjustFreeMoving(PhysicalWorld::Existents::iterator
object) = 0;
PhysicalWorld & world_;
double time_;
double final_;
double const delta_;
};
class LinearGravityEngine : public PhysicsEngine
{
public:
LinearGravityEngine(PhysicalWorld & world, double final, double
delta) :
PhysicsEngine(world, final, delta)
{}
private:
virtual void adjustFromCollision(PhysicalWorld::Existents::iterator
object1, PhysicalWorld::Existents::iterator object2)
{
if ((*object1)->collisionType() == particle)
{
// calculate relative distances and speed
double deltaX((*object1)->x() - (*object2)->x());
double deltaY((*object1)->y() - (*object2)->y());
double deltaZ((*object1)->z() - (*object2)->z());
double deltaVX((*object1)->vx() - (*object2)->vx());
double deltaVY((*object1)->vy() - (*object2)->vy());
double deltaVZ((*object1)->vz() - (*object2)->vz());
double relativeDistance(std::sqrt(deltaX * deltaX + deltaY *
deltaY + deltaZ * deltaZ));
double relativeVelocity(std::sqrt(deltaVX * deltaVX + deltaVY *
deltaVY + deltaVZ * deltaVZ));
// find relative angle
double theta(std::acos(deltaZ / relativeDistance));
double phi((deltaX == 0 && deltaY == 0) ? 0. :
std::atan2(deltaY, deltaX));
// ch-ch-ch-changes
double mu((*object2)->m() / (*object1)->m());
double diffZ(2. * (deltaVZ + std::tan(theta) *
(std::cos(phi) * deltaVX + std::sin(phi) *
deltaVY)) /
(1 + std::tan(theta) * std::tan(theta)) * (1 +
mu));
(*object2)->vz((*object2)->vz() + diffZ);
(*object2)->vx((*object2)->vx() + std::tan(theta) *
std::cos(phi) * diffZ);
(*object2)->vy((*object2)->vy() + std::tan(theta) *
std::sin(phi) * diffZ);
(*object1)->vz((*object1)->vz() - mu * diffZ);
(*object1)->vx((*object1)->vx() - std::tan(theta) *
std::cos(phi) * mu * diffZ);
(*object1)->vy((*object1)->vy() - std::tan(theta) *
std::sin(phi) * mu * diffZ);
}
else if ((*object1)->collisionType() == column)
{
if ((*object2)->z() < 0.)
{
// reflect off bottom
(*object2)->vz(-(*object2)->vz());
}
else if ((*object2)->z() > columnHeight)
{
// reflect off top
(*object2)->vz(-(*object2)->vz());
}
if (distance((*object2)->x(), (*object2)->y()))
{
// reflect off sides
// calculate the collision theta
double theta(((*object2)->x() == 0 && (*object2)->y() == 0) ?
0. : std::atan2((*object2)->y(), (*object2)->x()));
double velocityTheta(((*object2)->vx() == 0 && (*object2)-
>vy() == 0) ? 0. : std::atan2((*object2)->vy(), (*object2)->vx()));
double velocity(distance((*object2)->vx(), (*object2)->vy()));
(*object2)->vx(velocity * std::cos(pi + 2 * theta -
velocityTheta));
(*object2)->vy(velocity * std::sin(pi + 2 * theta -
velocityTheta));
}
}
}
virtual void adjustFreeMoving(PhysicalWorld::Existents::iterator
object)
{
// simple linear free with vertical gravity
(*object)->x((*object)->x() + (*object)->vx() * delta());
(*object)->y((*object)->y() + (*object)->vy() * delta());
(*object)->z((*object)->z() + (*object)->vz() * delta() + (1./2.)
* g * delta() * delta());
(*object)->vz((*object)->vz() + g * delta());
}
};
int main()
{
try
{
std::cout << "Functional Simulations Engine 0.39 - starting" <<
std::endl;
std::cout << "generated from source loschmidt.ml" << std::endl;
// build up the world
PhysicalWorld world;
std::cout << "created the world" << std::endl;
// add the column (radius 1
boost::shared_ptr<Existent> column(new EnclosingColumn(columnRadius,
columnHeight));
world.pushBack(column);
std::cout << "added the column" << std::endl;
// rng for simulations
boost::mt19937 rng;
rng.seed(static_cast<unsigned int>(std::time(0)));
// create particles
for (unsigned particleCounter(0); particleCounter <
numberOfParticles; ++particleCounter)
{
if (! particleCounter)
std::cout << "creating particle 1" << std::endl;
// find a random position in the column
// height in [0, columnHeight]
boost::uniform_real<> possibleHeight(0., columnHeight);
boost::variate_generator<boost::mt19937 &, boost::uniform_real<> >
heightGenerator(rng, possibleHeight);
double particleHeight(heightGenerator());
double particleX(0.);
double particleY(0.);
// find an x, y position in the column
// just loop until valid in a circle (to maintain distribution)
do
{
// build generator
boost::uniform_real<> possibleXY(0., columnRadius);
boost::variate_generator<boost::mt19937 &, boost::uniform_real<> >
tranverseGenerator(rng, possibleXY);
// pull an x, y
particleX = tranverseGenerator();
particleY = tranverseGenerator();
}
while (distance(particleX, particleY) >= columnRadius);
// now get a velocity in the maxwellian-boltzmann distribution for
the temperature
// which is just a normal distribution
// with mean = 0
// variance sigma^2 = k T / m
boost::normal_distribution<> possibleVelocity(0., sigma);
boost::variate_generator<boost::mt19937 &,
boost::normal_distribution<> > velocityGenerator(rng,
possibleVelocity);
double velocityX(velocityGenerator());
double velocityY(velocityGenerator());
double velocityZ(velocityGenerator());
if (! particleCounter)
std::cout << "initial state position: "
<< "\n x: " << particleX
<< " y: " << particleY
<< " z: " << particleHeight
<< "\n vx: " << velocityX
<< " vy: " << velocityY
<< " vz: " << velocityZ << std::endl;
std::stringstream converter;
converter << particleCounter;
// now build the particle
boost::shared_ptr<Existent> particle(new Particle(
Point3D(particleX, particleY, particleHeight),
Velocity3D(velocityX, velocityY, velocityZ),
particleRadius,
particleMass,
converter.str()));
world.pushBack(particle);
}
std::cout << "all particles created!" << std::endl;
// now that we have the world built
// build the physics engine
// attach the world
// and configure to run x deltas
LinearGravityEngine engine(world, 5., 0.1);
engine.run();
}
catch (std::exception & blowUp)
{
std::cout << "exception at lowest level: " << blowUp.what() <<
std::endl;
}
catch (...)
{
std::cout << "blowUps happen" << std::endl;
}
}
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
i apologise if my hand editing inserted any tabs or other errata
you will need to have a download of boost
on a UN*X/Linux/MacOSX machine simply type:
g++ -I<boost location> main.cpp
where <boost location> is the path to the outermost boost folder
from the distribution
enjoy the crankdom!
galathaea
i find it odd that you take this view of entropy
precisely because you see time as spatial
one of the biggest unsolved problems
( in my opinion probably the biggest )
is how we can have the second law
if all the laws of physics are reversible
( CPT invariant or what have you )
from my studies
it appears loschmidt was the first to point this out to boltzmann
though i am cautious to attribute primacy here
though there have been numerous attempts at explaining this
from boltzmann's h-theorem to priogine's local entropy
microscopic reversibility has not been defeated from physics
poincare's recurrence theorem also attacks the second law
so, jeff...
why do you hold both that time is spatial
and that entropy can never be recovered?
is it possible that the second law is only applicable
in places where highly ordered systems
are not tracked completely
and that energy (still being conserved!) can work for us forever?
The_Man
>
> still being very naive about this whole crackpot / crank thing
> i accidentally let the engineer inside think too hard about this
>
> since my degree is in physics simulations
How is this possible, when you don;t know ANY physics at all?
> and my career is in programming
> and i happened to have a simulation generator i have been building
> i generated a simulation for a gas in a column with gravity
No offense, but your simulation is pitiful, even for an undergraduate.
>
> the simulation generator is my
pathetic
>attempt at building
> a commercially viable product at home
> and although it still needs much work
> and doesn't generate the prettiest code yet
> i couldn't help seeing what it would give me here
>
> i have run some simulations
> playing around with the specifications
> and all my tests have validated loschmidt so far
>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> THE TEMPERATURE AT THE BOTTOM IS HOTTER THAN AT TOP
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> of course this seemed obvious to me
since you don't know anything about physics, who cares?
> because gravity accelerates particles moving down the column
> and slows them moving up
> but there is nothing better than seeing it validated in a simulation
>
> now
> currently particle collisions are very rare
Without particle collisons, EVERYTHING you say is MEANINGLESS. Do you
omit particle collisions because you are too shitty a programmer to
include them?
> ( due to size of particles and iteration delta )
> and i haven't fully tested that handling yet
> so the values are not mixing the z components with the x,y
Since i guess that your "stratification" is along the z axis, this
makes everything WORTHLESS.
>
> collisions with the wall only affect x,y
> collisions with the floor or ceiling only affect z
>
> but i will play with that some more
Save yourself the trouble.
>
> i have hand entered some comments
> and added output of the simulation
> ( the generator creates blanket output for the specification
> but litle descriptive output currently )
>
> anyways
> i cannot stress that i am well aware
> of many of the refactorings needed in this code
> as the generator placed code in places i normally wouldn't
>
> also since it was working with a larger model
> it has some stuff that can be completely refactored out
>
> despite that
> here is my generated loschmidt simulation
> ( in c++, from a generator written in OCaml )
So you can't actually even program in C++?
> in one large file format (the only working generation right now)
>
> this may get mercilessly chopped by google (sorry)
<snipped embarassing attempt at programming>
Dude, your biggest problem is that you DEFINE temperature as a
constant. You would need to set up temperature as a FUNCTION, a
function of the kinetic energy of the particles in a particular
region.
You could define temperature a number of ways, the simplest being that
the average kinetic energy = 3/2 kT.
If you knew the first thing about "physics simulations", you would
realize that you will get much different (and unreliable) results is
your particle density is too small, of if your time scale is too
short. Remember, temperature is UNDEFINED except at equilibrium.
If you try to follow each particle around, you'll go crazy and the
program won't accomplish much. There are sophisticated algorithms that
would simplify the process enormous, but you would already know these
if you were experienced at "physics simulations".
Before you can destroy the Second Law by a simulation, you would need
to write a simulation that would not be an embarassment to a high
school student.
galathaea
wow
you are so hateful and angry
you cannot even read properly
you want so dearly for me to be wrong
you make shit up
and don't even have an intuitive enough grasp of physics
to realise that the collisions do not change the result
but just to be _very_ explicit for your vituperative mind
( just so you don't avoid what i am saying ):
collisions are accounted for
if you read what i said and the code
you will see "particle on particle action"
the reason they are "very rare"
is because i have been testing low particle numbers
( 1000 - 10000 )
in a large column (100m tall by 20m radius)
and the particles are very very small
( i use the atomic hydrogen radius 2.4e-11m )
it is of course quite possible to create very rarefied physical
systems
with low enough torr to make collisions very unlikely
( we used to do it all the time in the ion labs )
in such a system
as the simulation shows
( and if you had any reading comprehension you would have noticed
_has_been_experimentally_verified_ as well by graeff )
you can still place a thermocouple on the top and bottom
and find a temperature difference
it is not particle collisions that would disturb the stratification
since collisions occur in the same strata
it is convection currents and other large scale movements
that obstruct the process and make it only metastable
however
the same idea works for passing a static electric field
through an ionised heat bath
and the idea can be shrunk down considerably
there are even published papers on this!
> > ( due to size of particles and iteration delta )
> > and i haven't fully tested that handling yet
> > so the values are not mixing the z components with the x,y
>
> Since i guess that your "stratification" is along the z axis, this
> makes everything WORTHLESS.
well
except for capital letters
what is your PHYSICS argument?
> > collisions with the wall only affect x,y
> > collisions with the floor or ceiling only affect z
>
> > but i will play with that some more
>
> Save yourself the trouble.
>
> > i have hand entered some comments
> > and added output of the simulation
> > ( the generator creates blanket output for the specification
> > but litle descriptive output currently )
>
> > anyways
> > i cannot stress that i am well aware
> > of many of the refactorings needed in this code
> > as the generator placed code in places i normally wouldn't
>
> > also since it was working with a larger model
> > it has some stuff that can be completely refactored out
>
> > despite that
> > here is my generated loschmidt simulation
> > ( in c++, from a generator written in OCaml )
>
> So you can't actually even program in C++?
i do it for a living
i wrote my generator in OCaml because i like the language
and because i already had some foundational OpenGL stuff
also
as i am sure you are intimately aware of
( from the sound of your pretensions )
parsing and walking tree structures is very easy in functional
languages
Camlp4 helps here a lot
and is much better than the antiquated and unsafe c preprocessor
> > in one large file format (the only working generation right now)
>
> > this may get mercilessly chopped by google (sorry)
>
> <snipped embarassing attempt at programming>
>
> Dude, your biggest problem is that you DEFINE temperature as a
> constant. You would need to set up temperature as a FUNCTION, a
> function of the kinetic energy of the particles in a particular
> region.
no
currently my biggest problem is that you cannot read the code
i defined the initial temperature of the gas
so i could randomly pick velocities for the particles
using the standard maxwell-boltzmann distribution
which gives the relation you mention!
but i measure temperature in 3 components at each strata
when i take the snapshot
( if you are not familiar with Tx, Ty, Tz components to temperature
they are common in calculations at colliders
where it is common to take transverse and parallel temperature )
the temperature is measured and averaged
not defined as constant
( i am not even sure how you could think i was doing that
_and_ somehow getting the result that T is stratified...)
> You could define temperature a number of ways, the simplest being that
> the average kinetic energy = 3/2 kT.
in the code...
> If you knew the first thing about "physics simulations", you would
> realize that you will get much different (and unreliable) results is
> your particle density is too small, of if your time scale is too
> short. Remember, temperature is UNDEFINED except at equilibrium.
i have been running a number of tests
varying parameters
> If you try to follow each particle around, you'll go crazy and the
> program won't accomplish much. There are sophisticated algorithms that
> would simplify the process enormous, but you would already know these
> if you were experienced at "physics simulations".
i know a number of techniques
many are already coded in the OCaml simulator
which the generator cannibalises and translates
this was one simulation i knew i could already generate
because i had recently added the necessary functionality
i am only one person though
with many interests
and it takes time to put everything together
this i think was a very good "initial public offering"
of what my generator could offer
> Before you can destroy the Second Law by a simulation, you would need
> to write a simulation that would not be an embarassment to a high
> school student.
i have written plenty of simulations
i am trying to write a simulation generator now
using the ideas of metaprogramming and domain specific languages
my specification is basically a modified category theory
where i define my ontology of objects
and the transformations they undergo
and let the generator publish a program for public consumption
this allows me to keep my core technology
and still be opensource about the simulations
( which should always be opensource )
-----------------------------
so
how about this?
you can point out a flaw in the simulation
which would be great for me because
i am actually interested in the physics here
and it would help improve my product
or you can point out a flaw in the physics
which i would also benefit from
or i (and any thread lurkers) will just consider you
an ignorant old man who likes trying to belittle others
by meaningless handwaving
The_Man
actually, I am in a good mood today. Thanks for asking.
> you cannot even read properly
>
> you want so dearly for me to be wrong
Whether you are right or wrong makes no difference to me at all.
> you make shit up
> and don't even have an intuitive enough grasp of physics
> to realise that the collisions do not change the result
Without collisions, YOU DON'T HAVE TEMPERATURE. Since your simulation
is designed to prove a hypothesis about tempreature distribuition,
this would be a rather significant problem.
>
> but just to be _very_ explicit for your vituperative mind
> ( just so you don't avoid what i am saying ):
>
> collisions are accounted for
>
> if you read what i said and the code
> you will see "particle on particle action"
>
> the reason they are "very rare"
> is because i have been testing low particle numbers
> ( 1000 - 10000 )
> in a large column (100m tall by 20m radius)
> and the particles are very very small
> ( i use the atomic hydrogen radius 2.4e-11m )
I understand that. To have more particles gets to be a pain, since the
number of collisiosn goes as N^2.
>
> it is of course quite possible to create very rarefied physical
> systems
> with low enough torr to make collisions very unlikely
> ( we used to do it all the time in the ion labs )
> in such a system
> as the simulation shows
> ( and if you had any reading comprehension you would have noticed
> _has_been_experimentally_verified_ as well by graeff )
> you can still place a thermocouple on the top and bottom
> and find a temperature difference
>
> it is not particle collisions that would disturb the stratification
> since collisions occur in the same strata
How can collisions occur ONLY in the same starta? This is a very
unphysical condition.
>
> it is convection currents and other large scale movements
> that obstruct the process and make it only metastable
How do you have convection without collisions?
>
> however
> the same idea works for passing a static electric field
> through an ionised heat bath
> and the idea can be shrunk down considerably
>
> there are even published papers on this!
>
> > > ( due to size of particles and iteration delta )
> > > and i haven't fully tested that handling yet
> > > so the values are not mixing the z components with the x,y
>
> > Since i guess that your "stratification" is along the z axis, this
> > makes everything WORTHLESS.
>
> well
>
> except for capital letters
> what is your PHYSICS argument?
My physics argument is that "temperature" is a phenomena closely
linked to the transfer of kinetic energy between particles by elastic
collisions. These collisions take place in 3 dimensions, not 2. While
I said (for simplicity) that you could calculate the temperature by
means of the average kinetic energy, BY DEFINTION, if your velocity
distribution doesn't follow the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, you
have NO temperature (the temperature is undefined).
> galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
galathaea
> On Mar 7, 3:41 pm, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 7, 11:59 am, "The_Man" <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > it is of course quite possible to create very rarefied physical
> > systems
> > with low enough torr to make collisions very unlikely
> > ( we used to do it all the time in the ion labs )
> > in such a system
> > as the simulation shows
> > ( and if you had any reading comprehension you would have noticed
> > _has_been_experimentally_verified_ as well by graeff )
> > you can still place a thermocouple on the top and bottom
> > and find a temperature difference
>
> > it is not particle collisions that would disturb the stratification
> > since collisions occur in the same strata
>
> unphysical condition.
a collision is almost pointlike
it exchanges energy between two particles
that differ in distance by ~ 2 * particleRadius
which is like half an angstrom here
so the total energy accounting in any strata does not change
which is the only thing that affects the total temperature in that
strata
( my Tavg in the program )
what it does accomplish is a mixing of Tx, Ty, and Tz
but that does not change the fact that
the particles still lose kinetic energy as they rise
and gain kinetic energy as they fall
> > it is convection currents and other large scale movements
> > that obstruct the process and make it only metastable
>
> How do you have convection without collisions?
i don't model convection here
that would be a full fluid dynamic simulation
or a collective property of the particles that i do not measure
i was simply pointing out that there is a mechanism
to mix temperatures between strata
but it wasn't simply collisions
there is a stable regime before convection sets in
even with collisions occurring
[...]
> > except for capital letters
> > what is your PHYSICS argument?
>
> My physics argument is that "temperature" is a phenomena closely
> linked to the transfer of kinetic energy between particles by elastic
> collisions. These collisions take place in 3 dimensions, not 2. While
> I said (for simplicity) that you could calculate the temperature by
> means of the average kinetic energy, BY DEFINTION, if your velocity
> distribution doesn't follow the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, you
> have NO temperature (the temperature is undefined).
[...]
the particles are colliding with the walls of the container
and sometimes colliding with each other
i can measure pressure
there is a defined volume
all the physics needed to do thermodynamic work
at this point
i have enough of the "temperature" to show
that a rarefied heat bath at equilibrium
will have a delta capable of driving a heat engine
which violates the second law
that therefore it is possible
if the simulation corresponds well enough with reality
to extract energy from a heat bath of a rarefied gas
whatever you want to call temperature
does not change these results in the energetics for this model
what would question this model
is to explain how this differential
still couldn't drive a carnot engine
that in itself may be interesting physics
-+-+-+-
when i get home tonight i will crank the radii up to .1m
and test that the collisions are handled properly
( another reason i code the generator in OCaml
is because there are so many available tools
for checking program correctness
particularly for the mathematical transformations it does )
i will post the results
the importance of opensource here
is that anyone can do the same
or even modify the program to account for other effects
Jeff…Relf
" The cosmos is truly causal ( i.e. falsely random ),
so all changes ( including so-called choices ) are nominal.
Time is truly spatial ( i.e. falsely directional ). "
so you asked me:
" Why do you hold both that time is spatial
and that [ the false arrow of time ] can never be [ Reversed ] ?
is it possible that the second law is only applicable
in places where highly ordered systems
are not tracked completely
and that energy ( still being conserved ! )
can work for us forever ? "
Like a virus, cars can't live without us, their hosts.
We are our thoughts, completely dependent on our hosts
( e.g. our rooms, society, the earth, the solar system, etc. )
and our thoughts are finite, discrete and cyclic.
Because of that, we " enjoy " pseudorandomness,
PseudoEntropy ( a.k.a. the false arrow of time ),
delusions, paranoia, etc. It's just the nature of the machine/beast.
Humans have the same " purpose " as cars and viruses... consumption.
All I do, all anyone does, all anything ever did, is consume.
By definition, the cosmos is a closed system
and the energy in it is continuously, spontaneously, irreversibly,
being spent. That's entropy, the second law of thermodynamics.
Many have speculated ( hoped, really )
that the known Universe is an open system
( " plugged into the wall ", so to speak )
but all empirical evidence suggests that this is not the case.
For example, 13.7 Giga_Years ago the CMB blackbody radiation
was 3 thousand Kelvin... today it's 3 Kelvin.
The energy of the known Universe is continually being consumed,
creating ' Life '.
Publius
@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com:
> at this point
> i have enough of the "temperature" to show
> that a rarefied heat bath at equilibrium
> will have a delta capable of driving a heat engine
>
> which violates the second law
Interesting stuff, g. Probably worth pointing out, though, that the
"violation" is only apparent. Gravity produces a temperature stratification
(a delta T) from which energy may (in principle) be extracted. But unless
that energy is replaced, e.g., by solar heating, the delta T will quickly
become too small to extract any further energy. Basically we are "stealing"
from the system heat which would otherwise drive convection.
galathaea
> "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote in news:1173314396.031294.195110
absolutely
that is the point
there is no violation
of the conservation of energy
extracting heat from a heat bath cools it
the friction and other dissipative forces
near turbulence and free energy
generate heat
so we have a completely reversible system
if you can turn a heat bath
into something that generates work
you have a perpetuum mobile of the second kind
all energy becomes potentially infinitely reusable
this is actually a problem in information theory as well
distinguishing force and work
from heat
is actually a distinction of _use_ or _understanding_
that is why thermodynamics was so important to the industrial
revolution
because it allowed us to automate uses of energy
understanding engines
meant understanding how to make the universe
do what we _intend_
gravity stratification
( or general field stratification )
means we can recover energy for use
in a physics that associates information with energy
in the manner of maxwell's demon solutions
field stratification means we can extract
a potentially infinite amount of energy from the universe
this may be
in secret
constructivisms greatest defense
against the defeatism of ultrafinitism
-+-+-+-
i performed the checks on particle-particlelast night
and noticed that when collisions occurred
there was a boost in the energy of the system
it turns out that the spherical collision equations
it uses as reference
are in a canonical basis in relation to the particles
but that i only coded it to boost one of the velocities to the frame
i've changed it to now properly perform the coordinate transformations
completely in both directions
i generated the program
asking it to also make a few code motions useful to debugging
to illustrate the usefulness and speed of generation
i have verified that the energetics of collisions conserve energy
and i have tracked several collisions
and verified realistic final conditions
( angles work out to maintain momentum )
now
velocities are mixing properly
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AND THE TEMPERATURE STRATIFICATION REMAINS
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i have tested radii of particles up to 1m
and a variety of deltas as low as .0001s
i have extended the times of the simulation
everything currently still supports loschmidt
here is the dump of the current generation:
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++++++...
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <cmath>
#include <string>
#include <sstream>
#include <exception>
#include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp>
#include <boost/random.hpp>
namespace
{
// math
double pi(3.14159265358);
// particle descriptors
double particleMass(1.67372e-24); // (kg)
//double particleRadius(2.4e-11); // (m)
double particleRadius(.5); // (m)
// environment
double columnRadius(20.); // (m)
double columnHeight(100.); // (m)
// energetics
double temperature(273.15); // (K) = 0(C)
double boltzmann_k(1.3806505e-23); // (J/K)
double sigma(std::sqrt(boltzmann_k * temperature /
particleMass)); // ~ 47.468
// gravity
double g(-9.807); // (m/s)
// simulation controls
unsigned numberOfParticles(2000);
double simulationTime(5.);
double simulationDelta(.01);
// debug
bool collisionData(true);
bool stateData(true);
bool temperatureStratumData(true);
bool particleCollisionCalculations(true);
}
template <typename Metric>
Metric distance(Metric const& x, Metric const& y)
{
return std::sqrt(x * x + y * y);
}
template <typename Metric>
Metric distance(Metric const& x, Metric const& y, Metric const& z)
struct Velocity3D : Point3D
{
Velocity3D()
{}
enum CollisionType
{
column,
particle
};
double mass_;
std::string name_;
};
if (collisionData && (name() == "0"))
std::cout << "particle on particle action" << std::endl;
return true;
}
return false;
}
virtual CollisionType collisionType() const
{
return particle;
}
private:
double radius_;
};
class EnclosingColumn : public Existent
{
public:
EnclosingColumn(double radius, double height) :
Existent(Point3D(), Velocity3D(), 0., "column"),
radius_(radius),
height_(height)
{}
virtual bool isCollided(boost::shared_ptr<Existent> otherEntity)
const
{
// otherEntity must always be a particle!
if (distance(otherEntity->x(), otherEntity->y()) > (radius_ -
boost::static_pointer_cast<Particle>(otherEntity)->radius()))
{
if (collisionData && (otherEntity->name() == "0"))
std::cout << "collision with wall of column" << std::endl;
return true;
}
else if (otherEntity->z() > (height_ -
boost::static_pointer_cast<Particle>(otherEntity)->radius()))
{
if (collisionData && (otherEntity->name() == "0"))
std::cout << "collision with ceiling" << std::endl;
return true;
}
else if (otherEntity->z() <
boost::static_pointer_cast<Particle>(otherEntity)->radius())
{
if (collisionData && (otherEntity->name() == "0"))
private:
Existents existents_;
};
squareAccumulatorX_ += tx * tx;
squareAccumulatorY_ += ty * ty;
squareAccumulatorZ_ += tz * tz;
++count_;
}
double tx() const
{
return temperatureAccumulatorX_ / count_;
}
double ty() const
{
return temperatureAccumulatorY_ / count_;
}
double tz() const
{
return temperatureAccumulatorZ_ / count_;
}
double mean() const
{
return (tx() + ty() + tz()) / 3.;
}
double standardDeviation() const
{
return std::sqrt(((squareAccumulatorX_ + squareAccumulatorY_ +
squareAccumulatorZ_) / (3. * count_)) - mean() * mean());
}
double temperatureAccumulatorX_;
double temperatureAccumulatorY_;
double temperatureAccumulatorZ_;
double squareAccumulatorX_;
double squareAccumulatorY_;
double squareAccumulatorZ_;
unsigned count_;
};
if (stateData)
std::cout << "particle 1's iterated state:"
<< "\n x: " << (*existent)->x()
<< "\n y: " << (*existent)->y()
<< "\n z: " << (*existent)->z()
<< "\n vx: " << (*existent)->vx()
<< "\n vy: " << (*existent)->vy()
<< "\n vz: " << (*existent)->vz() << std::endl;
// and build temperature profile
unsigned strata(5);
std::vector<StrataProfile> temperatures(strata);
while (existent != world_.end())
{
unsigned particularStrata(static_cast<unsigned>(((*existent)-
>z() * 5.0) / columnHeight));
if (particularStrata >= strata)
particularStrata = strata - 1;
if (particularStrata < 0)
particularStrata = 0;
double tx((*existent)->m() * (*existent)->vx() * (*existent)-
>vx() / boltzmann_k);
double ty((*existent)->m() * (*existent)->vy() * (*existent)-
>vy() / boltzmann_k);
double tz((*existent)->m() * (*existent)->vz() * (*existent)-
>vz() / boltzmann_k);
temperatures[particularStrata].add(tx, ty, tz);
++existent;
}
for (unsigned stratum(0); stratum < strata; ++stratum)
{
if (temperatureStratumData)
std::cout << "in stratum " << stratum << " there were " <<
temperatures[stratum].count_ << " particles" << std::endl;
if (temperatures[stratum].count_)
{
if (temperatureStratumData)
std::cout << " tx: " << temperatures[stratum].tx()
<< " ty: " << temperatures[stratum].ty()
<< " tz: " << temperatures[stratum].tz()
<< " Tavg: " << temperatures[stratum].mean()
<< " std dev: +/-" <<
temperatures[stratum].standardDeviation() << std::endl;
if (0 == stratum)
bottom.add(temperatures[stratum].tx(),
temperatures[stratum].ty(), temperatures[stratum].tz());
else if ((strata - 1) == stratum)
top.add(temperatures[stratum].tx(),
temperatures[stratum].ty(), temperatures[stratum].tz());
}
else if (temperatureStratumData)
std::cout << "no temperature information possible" <<
std::endl;
}
}
// dump full run statistics
std::cout << "over the simulation we have"
<< "\ntop strata of the column - tx: " << top.tx() << " ty: " <<
top.ty() << " tz: " << top.tz()
<< " Tavg: " << top.mean() << " std dev: +/-" <<
top.standardDeviation()
<< "\nbottom strata of the column - tx: " << bottom.tx() << "
ty: " << bottom.ty() << " tz: " << bottom.tz()
<< " Tavg: " << bottom.mean() << " std dev: +/-" <<
bottom.standardDeviation()
<< std::endl;
}
private:
bool collision(PhysicalWorld::Existents::iterator object1,
PhysicalWorld::Existents::iterator object2)
{
return (*object1)->isCollided(*object2);
}
virtual void adjustFromCollision(PhysicalWorld::Existents::iterator
object1, PhysicalWorld::Existents::iterator object2) = 0;
virtual void adjustFreeMoving(PhysicalWorld::Existents::iterator
object) = 0;
PhysicalWorld & world_;
double time_;
double final_;
double const delta_;
};
class LinearGravityEngine : public PhysicsEngine
{
public:
LinearGravityEngine(PhysicalWorld & world, double final, double
delta) :
PhysicsEngine(world, final, delta)
{}
private:
virtual void adjustFromCollision(PhysicalWorld::Existents::iterator
object1, PhysicalWorld::Existents::iterator object2)
{
if ((*object1)->collisionType() == particle)
{
if (particleCollisionCalculations && ((*object1)->name() ==
"0"))
std::cout << "particles colliding:"
<< "\n 1 - x: " << (*object1)->x() << " y: " << (*object1)-
>y() << " z: " << (*object1)->z()
<< "\n 1 - vx: " << (*object1)->vx() << " vy: " <<
(*object1)->vy() << " vz: " << (*object1)->vz()
<< "\n 2 - x: " << (*object2)->x() << " y: " << (*object2)-
>y() << " z: " << (*object2)->z()
<< "\n 2 - vx: " << (*object2)->vx() << " vy: " <<
(*object2)->vy() << " vz: " << (*object2)->vz() << std::endl;
// calculate relative distances and speed
double deltaX((*object2)->x() - (*object1)->x());
double deltaY((*object2)->y() - (*object1)->y());
double deltaZ((*object2)->z() - (*object1)->z());
double deltaVX((*object2)->vx() - (*object1)->vx());
double deltaVY((*object2)->vy() - (*object1)->vy());
double deltaVZ((*object2)->vz() - (*object1)->vz());
double relativeDistance(distance(deltaX, deltaY, deltaZ));
double relativeVelocity(distance(deltaVX, deltaVY, deltaVZ));
if (particleCollisionCalculations && ((*object1)->name() ==
"0"))
std::cout << "relativeDistance: " << relativeDistance << "
relativeVelocity: " << relativeVelocity << std::endl;
// find relative angle
double theta(std::acos(deltaZ / relativeDistance));
double phi(((0 == deltaX) && (0 == deltaY)) ? 0. :
std::atan2(deltaY, deltaX));
if ((*object1)->name() == "0")
std::cout << "theta: " << theta << " phi: " << phi <<
std::endl;
// rotate to canonical coordinates
double rotatedVelocityX(- std::cos(theta) * std::cos(phi) *
deltaVX - std::cos(theta) * std::sin(phi) * deltaVY + std::sin(theta)
* deltaVZ);
double rotatedVelocityY(std::sin(phi) * deltaVX - std::cos(phi)
* deltaVY);
double rotatedVelocityZ(- std::sin(theta) * std::cos(phi) *
deltaVX - std::sin(theta) * std::sin(phi) * deltaVY - std::cos(theta)
* deltaVZ);
if (particleCollisionCalculations && ((*object1)->name() ==
"0"))
std::cout << "rotatedVelocityX: " << rotatedVelocityX << "
rotatedVelocityY: "
<< rotatedVelocityY << " rotatedVelocityZ: " <<
rotatedVelocityZ << std::endl;
// find relative velocity angles
double velocityTheta(std::acos(rotatedVelocityZ /
relativeVelocity));
double velocityPhi(((0 == rotatedVelocityX) && (0 ==
rotatedVelocityY)) ? 0. : std::atan2(rotatedVelocityY,
rotatedVelocityX));
if (particleCollisionCalculations && ((*object1)->name() ==
"0"))
std::cout << "velocityTheta: " << velocityTheta << "
velocityPhi: " << velocityPhi << std::endl;
// classic impact parameter
double impact(relativeDistance * std::sin(velocityTheta) /
(boost::static_pointer_cast<Particle>(*object1)->radius() +
boost::static_pointer_cast<Particle>(*object2)->radius()));
if (particleCollisionCalculations && ((*object1)->name() ==
"0"))
std::cout << "impact: " << impact << std::endl;
// reverse motion to collision time
double collisionTime((relativeDistance*std::cos(velocityTheta) -
(boost::static_pointer_cast<Particle>(*object1)->radius() +
boost::static_pointer_cast<Particle>(*object2)->radius()) *
std::sqrt(1. - impact * impact)) / relativeVelocity);
(*object1)->x((- deltaVX + (*object2)->vx()) * collisionTime +
(*object1)->x());
(*object1)->y((- deltaVY + (*object2)->vy()) * collisionTime +
(*object1)->y());
(*object1)->z((- deltaVZ + (*object2)->vz()) * collisionTime +
(*object1)->z());
(*object2)->x(deltaX + deltaVX * collisionTime + (*object1)-
>x());
(*object2)->y(deltaY + deltaVY * collisionTime + (*object1)-
>y());
(*object2)->z(deltaZ + deltaVZ * collisionTime + (*object1)-
>z());
if (particleCollisionCalculations && ((*object1)->name() ==
"0"))
std::cout << "collisionTime: " << collisionTime << std::endl;
// calculate collision angles
double impactAngle(std::asin(-impact));
double velocityAngleTotal(std::tan(velocityTheta +
impactAngle));
if (particleCollisionCalculations && ((*object1)->name() ==
"0"))
std::cout << "impactAngle: " << impactAngle << "
velocityAngleTotal: " << velocityAngleTotal << std::endl;
// mass impact
double mu((*object2)->m() / (*object1)->m());
double diffZ(2. * (rotatedVelocityZ + velocityAngleTotal *
(std::cos(velocityPhi) * rotatedVelocityX +
std::sin(velocityPhi) * rotatedVelocityY)) /
((1 + velocityAngleTotal * velocityAngleTotal) * (1
+ mu)));
// boost coordinate frame for impact
double boostedVelocityX(velocityAngleTotal *
std::cos(velocityPhi) * diffZ);
double boostedVelocityY(velocityAngleTotal *
std::sin(velocityPhi) * diffZ);
double boostedVelocityZ(diffZ);
rotatedVelocityX -= mu * boostedVelocityX;
rotatedVelocityY -= mu * boostedVelocityY;
rotatedVelocityZ -= mu * boostedVelocityZ;
if (particleCollisionCalculations && ((*object1)->name() ==
"0"))
std::cout << "boostedVelocityX: " << boostedVelocityX << "
boostedVelocityY: "
<< boostedVelocityY << " boostedVelocityZ: " <<
boostedVelocityZ
<< "\n and updated rotatedVelocityX: " << rotatedVelocityX
<< " rotatedVelocityY: "
<< rotatedVelocityY << " rotatedVelocityZ: " <<
rotatedVelocityZ << std::endl;
// and finally transform velocities
(*object1)->vx(std::cos(theta) * std::cos(phi) *
rotatedVelocityX - std::sin(phi) * rotatedVelocityY
+ std::sin(theta) * std::cos(phi) *
rotatedVelocityZ + (*object2)->vx());
(*object1)->vy(std::cos(theta) * std::sin(phi) *
rotatedVelocityX + std::cos(phi) * rotatedVelocityY
+ std::sin(theta) * std::sin(phi) *
rotatedVelocityZ + (*object2)->vy());
(*object1)->vz(- std::sin(theta) * rotatedVelocityX +
std::cos(theta) * rotatedVelocityZ + (*object2)->vz());
(*object2)->vx(std::cos(theta) * std::cos(phi) *
boostedVelocityX - std::sin(phi) * boostedVelocityY
+ std::sin(theta) * std::cos(phi) *
boostedVelocityZ + (*object2)->vx());
(*object2)->vy(std::cos(theta) * std::sin(phi) *
boostedVelocityX + std::cos(phi) * boostedVelocityY
+ std::sin(theta) * std::sin(phi) *
boostedVelocityZ + (*object2)->vy());
(*object2)->vz(- std::sin(theta) * boostedVelocityX +
std::cos(theta) * boostedVelocityZ + (*object2)->vz());
if (particleCollisionCalculations && ((*object1)->name() ==
"0"))
std::cout << "particles leaving:"
<< "\n 1 - x: " << (*object1)->x() << " y: " << (*object1)-
>y() << " z: " << (*object1)->z()
<< "\n 1 - vx: " << (*object1)->vx() << " vy: " <<
(*object1)->vy() << " vz: " << (*object1)->vz()
<< "\n 2 - x: " << (*object2)->x() << " y: " << (*object2)-
>y() << " z: " << (*object2)->z()
<< "\n 2 - vx: " << (*object2)->vx() << " vy: " <<
(*object2)->vy() << " vz: " << (*object2)->vz() << std::endl;
double particleHeight(heightGenerator());
double particleX(0.);
double particleY(0.);
world.pushBack(particle);
}
LinearGravityEngine engine(world, simulationTime,
simulationDelta);
engine.run();
}
catch (std::exception & blowUp)
{
std::cout << "exception at lowest level: " << blowUp.what() <<
std::endl;
}
catch (...)
{
std::cout << "blowUps happen" << std::endl;
}
}
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jens Thoms Toerring
> collisions are accounted for
> the reason they are "very rare"
> is because i have been testing low particle numbers
> ( 1000 - 10000 )
> in a large column (100m tall by 20m radius)
> and the particles are very very small
> ( i use the atomic hydrogen radius 2.4e-11m )
Do you realize that that's about one particle within 1 to 10
cubic meters? That's a pretty good vacuum. Do you made an
estimate of how long a system under such conditions requires
to achieve thermal equilibrium (not that you can achieve that
at all if you do not take collisions into account - where else
would it result from)?
Do yourself a favour and, just for a test, start your system
with a non-Maxwell-velocity-distribution (but were you know
the initial total energy) and check how long it takes, swit-
ching off gravity, to end up with a Maxwell-distribution (if
it does at all) and check if the energy didn't change more
than to be expected (due to just rounding errors) before you
try to draw any conclusions from your simulation under more
complicated conditions.
Regards, Jens
--
\ Jens Thoms Toerring ___ j...@toerring.de
\__________________________ http://toerring.de
red floyd
>
>
> there is no violation
> of the conservation of energy
>
> extracting heat from a heat bath cools it
>
> the friction and other dissipative forces
> near turbulence and free energy
> generate heat
>
> so we have a completely reversible system
>
> if you can turn a heat bath
> into something that generates work
> you have a perpetuum mobile of the second kind
>
Except for that darned Laws of Thermodynamics!!!!
galathaea
> In comp.programming galathaea <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > collisions are accounted for
> > the reason they are "very rare"
> > is because i have been testing low particle numbers
> > ( 1000 - 10000 )
> > in a large column (100m tall by 20m radius)
> > and the particles are very very small
> > ( i use the atomic hydrogen radius 2.4e-11m )
>
> Do you realize that that's about one particle within 1 to 10
> cubic meters? That's a pretty good vacuum.
my first goal was to demonstrate the principle
in "any" regime of state space
once that was done
and the simulation established
then i could expand into other regimes
and map the property space
but you are right that the full principle needs to be demonstrated
and i was cautious to immediately expand radii
because i didn't trust the particle on particle collision routine
it entrusted a lot of sophistication on the part of the generator
to handle complex translation and rotation matrices
in various three dimensional frames
(and i knew i hadn't spent much time there...)
it has turned out to have a few transformation bugs
which i have explored in this related discussion:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b169b6d9bba7853d?hl=en&
as it mentions towards the bottom
i have worked out now even the particle-particle collisions
and in these regimes it is still illustrating stratification
by enlarging radii in the simulation
the system can be reinterpreted as a
lower temperature
higher gravity
smaller volume
higher density
system of normal sized particles
its just a variable scaling
so now i am beginning to map a volume of phase space
that appears to obey loschmidt's law
> Do you make an
> estimate of how long a system under such conditions requires
> to achieve thermal equilibrium (not that you can achieve that
> at all if you do not take collisions into account - where else
> would it result from)?
actually i haven't made hard bounds yet
because i wanted to examine the actual dynamic data
notice that i place the system
in the state proposed by boltzmann and maxwell
as _the_ equilibrium state
so it is interesting
that it naturally and regularly
deviates in favor of loschmidt's law
i have run the simulation as long as 20 seconds
and in the regime's i was testing
this separated the stratification by 3 or more standard deviations
so there is evidence
i am allowing the systems to come to good equilibrium
but i can run the simulation for several minutes or longer
this may take several hours on my macbook
i think you are absolutely correct that it is needed
to establish trust this is not a false equilibrium
> Do yourself a favour and, just for a test, start your system
> with a non-Maxwell-velocity-distribution (but were you know
> the initial total energy) and check how long it takes, swit-
> ching off gravity, to end up with a Maxwell-distribution (if
> it does at all) and check if the energy didn't change more
> than to be expected (due to just rounding errors) before you
> try to draw any conclusions from your simulation under more
> complicated conditions.
i think these are all very good tests to put the simulator through
and i thank you for all your suggestions
i do not have an agenda here
and only want to predict what actually occurs in experience
because that is the only source of valid technology
so i want to explore all regimes relevant to experience
i will post results as they are known
in the meantime
do yourself a favor and download "b@un(e"
the new musical accompaniment to particle collision simulators
at
http://www.garageband.com/artist/galathaea
=p
Jeff…Relf
Photons are redshifted ( i.e. cooled )
as they climb out of the earth's ( or sun's ) gravity well,
and both the earth and the sun have been
cooled down by the net loss of photons and atoms.
As I told you in, " news:Jeff_Relf_2...@Cotse.NET ":
The_Man
You can save yourself a lot of computational effort by omitting
collisions with the walls in the x and y axes. If you imagine that
your box is oriented so that the z axis is "up" (the one affected by
gravity), a good deal of your simulation is following the particles as
they bounce off the walls.
A way to have a more realistic simulation (and one that is more
typical of how physics simulations are usually run) is to use so-
called "periodic boundary conditions" for the x and y axes. Don;t use
them on the z axis, or you won;t have any information about the gavity
effect.
By perioidic bounary conditions I mean, that every time a particle
would "hit the wall" of the +x axis, a particle should emerge for the -
x axis, with the same velocity as the previous particle. These
conditions are necessary to remove "edge" effects. It also simplifies
the progrmming somewhat.
Another way to simplify the programming, while testing your code, is
to make the whole problem 1-dimensional. In this case, there is only 1
axis, the z axis. Start with a random distribution of points, with
random velocities. Now collisions are easier to predict, and determine
their effect, since there is only 1 dimension. Gravity affects along
the z axis.
guenther vonKnakspot
<very extensive snip>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
Leapin' Becquerels Batman! Another victim of The Riddler!
Listen girl, go outside pick a flower and smell at it. You really need
it. And when you're your old self meditate on why you can't put that
in C.
Regards.
galathaea
> On Mar 9, 1:28 am, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <very extensive snip>
>
> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
>
> Leapin' Becquerels Batman! Another victim of The Riddler!
i know
it appears i have finally lost it
i have taken a rather unorthodox approach to crankdom
however
by posting andreaas trupp's mathematical derivation
and following with my own particle simulations
maybe i should start making some obvious errors
to make it it easier for others to point them out
at which point i can repeatedly
AND ALL IN CAPS
start calling them boltzmann zombies...
that just doesn't sound like it would be as much fun
though...
> Listen girl, go outside pick a flower and smell at it. You really need
> it. And when you're your old self meditate on why you can't put that
> in C.
my plum tree made it through the winter
i was very scared for it
because we get freezing temperatures at times
and its still very small (smaller than i!)
it has a whole bunch of pretty white flowers now
but
and i apologise for what i am about to say
there are times
when i am dreaming larger than anyone really out to dream
where i imagine my simulations generator
one day mapping much of the space of evolution
starting with a basic reaction engine
exploring early autocatalysis
and the initial encapsulations
simulating the great oxygen catastrophe
and the endosymbioses it engenders until eukarya
until
space and moore's law willing
i have simulations of that plum tree
and the olfactory responses of the neural system
of some strange monkeygirl
that keeps walking up to it and sniffing
galathaea
yes
and i do not disagree that these are well verified in experience
and i am also not questioning the first law
conservation of energy
which is the basis of all modern formulations of physics
in terms of lagrangians and hamiltonians
from which the time invariance of physical law is derived
but the second law has the most tenuous link
of all the thermodynamic laws
to fundamental physics
microscopic reversibility challenges it
poincare's recurrence theorem challenges it
so it is still being tackled by physicists to this day
and the second and third laws are intimately linked
because of quantum effects
and the fact that 0 is not a temperature of absolute rest
but merely a temperature of minimal energy
due to zero-point fluctuations
( as mentioned even by feynman )
it would be a rather elegant resolution to the problem
if the second law was simply an approximation in many ordered
circumstances
if it could in fact be violated
thus validating many of the modern physical symmetries
the effect i am simulating
is very small to say the least
and would require a slightly different formulation
for technology
daniel sheehan has published more about such possibilities
in phys. rev. e
phys. lett. a
phys. plasma
among others
quite reputable publications...
galathaea
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Autymn+Loschmidt
i did search for loschmidt before posting
but all of threads that i saw were about kekule and avogadro
you must not be doing enough
to make your cryptic posts count to google's relevance meter!
=p
i also searched for mention of graeff's experiments
and trupp's derivation
and found that even emptier
so i thought i'd kick it around
i do not claim any of this is "my theory"
only that i find it interesting
i often enjoy your posts
though
and wish i had seen your mentions earlier...
galathaea
information
correction here
without which
the whole mention of ultrafinitism-v-constructivism makes no sense
galathaea
>
> ^*^*^*^*^*^*..
>
> roederich graeff has performed that experiment
> and carefully noted a repeatable stratification
>
> molecular simulations have predicted stratification
>
> andreas trupp has derived it from very basic physics
>
> http://users.aol.com/atrupp/loschmidt01.pdf
>
> and there is even suggestion
> that the troposphere of venus also evidences this stratification
>
> ..&%&%&%&%&%&%
>
> so loschmidt is one of those
> " respectable " physicists stutter nervously about
> definitely a very bright man with many acheivements
> ( but none that should be commonly accepted as his in english )
>
> a very punk lifestyle
> son of bohemian farmers
> challenging the orthodoxy of his friends
>
> speaking the unspeakables
>
> ;;
>
> there is no shame in pursuing possibility
i just wanted to put loschmidts full quote in
for the archives:
" ...With this the terroristic nimbus of the Second Law
which makes it look like the destructive principle of
any life in the universe would be destroyed. On the
other side it opens up the comforting perspective that
humanity is not solely dependent upon using coal or the
sun to produce work out of heat, but that for all times
a inexhaustible reserve of changeable heat will be
available. "
it is interesting that even 130 years ago (feb 1876)
terrorism was tied to energy policy...
o:
Jens Thoms Toerring
> > In comp.programming galathaea <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > collisions are accounted for
> > > the reason they are "very rare"
> > > is because i have been testing low particle numbers
> > > ( 1000 - 10000 )
> > > in a large column (100m tall by 20m radius)
> > > and the particles are very very small
> > > ( i use the atomic hydrogen radius 2.4e-11m )
> >
> > Do you realize that that's about one particle within 1 to 10
> > cubic meters? That's a pretty good vacuum.
> my first goal was to demonstrate the principle
> in "any" regime of state space
> i have run the simulation as long as 20 seconds
> and in the regime's i was testing
> this separated the stratification by 3 or more standard deviations
> so there is evidence
> i am allowing the systems to come to good equilibrium
> but i can run the simulation for several minutes or longer
> this may take several hours on my macbook
Look, "pretty good vacumm" was meant to be sarcastic. There is a
number of estimates about the density of particles in outer space
which tend to be in the order of one particle per cubic centimeter.
You seem to be doing "simulations" for a vacuum where there's about
one particle per cubic meter, i.e. your have a density that is one
millionth of that expected to exist in outer space (not like in
crowded places like in the solar system). And you expect to find
any effects after a time of 20 seconds? Wait some millions of years
(simulation time) before getting excited about any results. Remember
that thermodynamics work under the assumptions that you have a huge
number of particles and/or lots of time (and better lots of both) -
it's statistics. Your "simulation" has neither lots of particles nor
do you give it any reasonable amount of time. 20 seconds probably
wouldn't be enough to reach thermal equilibrium if you had a pot of
water where you start with e.g. a vertical temperature gradient of
a few degrees - and that at a density higher by about 30 orders of
magnitude and correspondingly much, much, much larger probabilities
of particle collisions than in your "simulation" (so you are correct
in disregarding particle collisions since basically none will happen
under the assumptions you make - ultra-low density, short time - but
then you aren't simulating anything resembling the reality you ob-
viously intend to simulate).
Jeff…Relf
As I recently told my buddy T.J. in
" news:Jeff_Relf_2...@Cotse.NET ":
" Step out on your deck on a cold arctic night and look at the stars...
Some day, they won't be there because
their energy will have been spent, consumed... That's entropy.
That ( consumption, entropy ) is what created you;
and consuming more just means dying that much sooner. "
Eric Gisse
> Okay Galathaea, now ya got me stalkin' ya, darn it.
>
> As I recently told my buddy T.J. in
> "news:Jeff_Relf_2...@Cotse.NET":
> " Step out on your deck on a cold arctic night and look at the stars...
> Some day, they won't be there because
> their energy will have been spent, consumed... That's entropy.
No, moron. It isn't.
Stop talking about subjects you don't understand.
Jeff…Relf
I respect you as much as I would any recent high school drop out,
but you should really shut up until you have something worth saying.
Eric Gisse
Telling you to shut the fuck up is something worth saying. You have no
knowledge of physics, and you are unwilling to learn because spouting
word salad phrases is much easier than actually learning the
mathematics.
Jeff…Relf
" Step out on your deck on a cold arctic night and look at the stars...
and consuming more just means dying that much sooner. "
Don't just say " all of it ",
pick out something and give me your " givens ",
your models, numbers, etc.
Eric Gisse
You have no idea what entropy is, that is the problem.
You have no idea what times scales you are talking about, that is the
problem.
You have no idea what you are talking about, that is the problem.
Jeff…Relf
so let's take this, your first statement, and run with it.
At it's broadest, I'd say that " Entropy " is spent energy.
In thermodynamics, the units are Joules per Kelvin,
a measure of unusable energy, per Kelvin, in a closed system.
According to Lambda-CDM, much energy of the known universe
was spent spontaneously, irrevocably... it was dissipated.
The known universe has no center of gavity,
it's a closed system, no inputs/outputs from/to outside.
Please tell me how that doesn't describe entropy.
Think of all the energy ( gravitational and otherwise )
that's been spent in the last 13.7 billion years,
creating our solar system, the earth and us.
In that time, the known Universe has cooled 1,100 times.
Some call that Dark Energy, I call it entropy.
And it's on course to becoming the end of us.
How soon it ends depends on the consumption rate,
the faster the consumption rate, the sooner the end.
The consumption rate was higher when the Universe was younger.
The Universe doesn't actually have an age,
it just has known history, a finite history.
galathaea
> In comp.programming galathaea <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 8, 4:39 pm, j...@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) wrote:
> > > In comp.programming galathaea <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > collisions are accounted for
> > > > the reason they are "very rare"
> > > > is because i have been testing low particle numbers
> > > > ( 1000 - 10000 )
> > > > in a large column (100m tall by 20m radius)
> > > > and the particles are very very small
> > > > ( i use the atomic hydrogen radius 2.4e-11m )
>
> > > Do you realize that that's about one particle within 1 to 10
> > > cubic meters? That's a pretty good vacuum.
>
> > my first goal was to demonstrate the principle
> > in "any" regime of state space
> > i have run the simulation as long as 20 seconds
> > and in the regime's i was testing
> > this separated the stratification by 3 or more standard deviations
> > so there is evidence
> > i am allowing the systems to come to good equilibrium
> > but i can run the simulation for several minutes or longer
> > this may take several hours on my macbook
>
> Look, "pretty good vacumm" was meant to be sarcastic.
i think you missed the statements
where i have now been able to do simulations
with much larger radii
but i have now done simulations for up to 120s
which only takes about two and a half hours running time
so i am starting to get some good statistics
in particular
i have one archived run i will use as a standard reference
in this run
there were 2000 particles
the time delta was 0.01
and the particles had radii 0.5m
with plenty of collisions
as i mentioned in a previous post
this simply scales the length parameters by the ratio
2.4e-11 : 0.5
so that instead of a 20m radius column 100m tall
i have a 9.6e-10m radius column 4.8e-9m tall
this gives a volume of 1.392e-26 m^3
here the density is then 2.4e5 kg/m^3
the temperature and gravity are also scaled
this is an interesting regime to watch
because the scales manifest large fluctuations
so there are a lot of structural statistics to verify
here
temperature fluctuations are typically such that
the standard deviation stays pretty large (~60K)
and there are regular temperature inversions
even in this regime
though
i find that the mean temperature on the bottom is 282 K
and the mean temperature on the top is only 271 K
statistically
the bottom is warmer than the top 70-80% of the time
and the data shows that despite inversions of 2-3s
temperature consistently prefers stratification favoring the bottom
it is clear
by graphing the proportion of time throughout the simulation
that the bottom dominates the top
that despite an early fluctuation
the bottom dominates early
and only moves furthur and furthur towards clear statistical
dominance
it rises quickly past 60% where it stays once past
and shortly later rises past 70%
and stays above that after the 30s mark
i am putting together some graphs that i will post tomorrow
and updating the generator with some optimising generation rules
( basically some precalculation )
i also am adding even more precision to the calculations
using an abolute collision coordinate rule
that will provide even more accuracy and confidence in results
but at this point
i think it is starting to be clear that there is an effect here
at least in thes classical models
all the other classical effects are accounted properly
including
if you check the output on particle numbers in strata
the classical pressure stratification in gravity
which every undergrad calculates in a 201 intro course
...
all simulations regularly and consistently are showing
the stratification predicted by loschmidt
this is very interesting
because there has been nothing added to the simulations
to "induce" this effect
in fact
i think the idea of code generating these simulations
provides a good safety net against any misfitism
and making it opensource verifies the results to others
it is interesting that no one has challenged the simulations so far
despite their consistently validating loschmidt...
********..%%%%%%%%%%%
i can email anyone who wishes to see my archived runs
also
since i have posted various stages of generated code
others can verify if they desire
tomorrow
the graphs
galathaea
it is interesting
you mention redshifting
but that would add another effect
to validate loschmidt ( not contradict )
i had not thought there might be many reasons
loschmidt could be validated
but looking at collisions like feynman diagrams
an interaction may involve a furthur energy shift
due to photon transfer in gravity
you did notice that redshifting
would add to the cooling affect to height
did you not?
if the model is myopic
it is only that it is too conservative
in predicting the effect
galathaea
i agree i could save calculation effort
i could have used a rectangular box
and every collision would have been a compare and inversion
which would have been equivalent to the computation
for periodic boundaries
mostly
i chose the cylindrical shape of the container
to show off the capabilities of the generator
and force me to validate the geometric computations of the generator
that was the area i was working on
at the time i decided to test this generation
> A way to have a more realistic simulation (and one that is more
> typical of how physics simulations are usually run) is to use so-
> called "periodic boundary conditions" for the x and y axes. Don;t use
> them on the z axis, or you won;t have any information about the gavity
> effect.
>
> By perioidic bounary conditions I mean, that every time a particle
> would "hit the wall" of the +x axis, a particle should emerge for the -
> x axis, with the same velocity as the previous particle. These
> conditions are necessary to remove "edge" effects. It also simplifies
> the progrmming somewhat.
the calculation here would be (pseudocode)
if (outside boudary)
shift to within boundary
and the shift would be an addition or subtraction
just like reflection is
> Another way to simplify the programming, while testing your code, is
> to make the whole problem 1-dimensional. In this case, there is only 1
> axis, the z axis. Start with a random distribution of points, with
> random velocities. Now collisions are easier to predict, and determine
> their effect, since there is only 1 dimension. Gravity affects along
> the z axis.
i do like this suggestion
and i have started writing up a specification
tomorrow i will generate...
Jeff…Relf
I noted that your computer simulation doesn't address redshifting,
so you asked me:
" You did notice that redshifting
would add to the cooling affect to height
did you not ? "
Yes, but the scope of your model isn't very " cosmic ".
While Newton ( 300 years ago ) had gravitational energy as
a function of mass and distance, Einstein's field equations have
gravitational energy as spacetime, a function of density and pressure.
Is it any wonder, then, that greater gravitational energy
implies greater " energy density " ( i.e. temperature ) ?
For example, the sun's gravitational energy matches its heat energy.
So-called black holes eject cosmic rays,
more energetic than ions from 24/7 solar flares.
Hmm... entropy is joules per kelvin, i.e. energy over energy density.
So entropy and GR are modeling the same thing, density and pressure,
because entopy is inversely related to gravity... How cosmic !
Eric Gisse
Jeff...Relf wrote:
> Okay Gisse, You told me, " You have no idea what entropy is. ",
> so let's take this, your first statement, and run with it.
>
> At it's broadest, I'd say that " Entropy " is spent energy.
> In thermodynamics, the units are Joules per Kelvin,
> a measure of unusable energy, per Kelvin, in a closed system.
WRONG.
Entropy is _defined_ as k*log(number of available states in the
system).
I suggest opening an actual thermodynamics textbook.
[snip remaining]
Jeff…Relf
" Entropy is _defined_ as
' Boltzmanns_Constant * ln( Equation_Of_State ) '.
I suggest opening an actual thermodynamics textbook.
Your thermodynamics textbook sucks like a 'tard, Gisse.
The word " Entropy " has a lot of definitions,
you're refering to the " statistical thermodynamics " of an ideal gas.
In the model, entropy is a measure of unpredictability.
As I just told PD...
How we model " time " depends on our goals and " givens ".
General Relativity models time as a spatial dimension;
in the model, time is static, parochial and immutable.
Humans model time by how many shits they take, more shits = more tics.
Shit is entropy personified, it's spent energy.
Consuming more just means dying that much sooner.
Cause and effect are not always well known at the quantum level.
Like thermodynamics, quantum mechanics is about temperature.
For example, if we have an _ Ideal _ laser ( ha ha )
then the frequency and momentum is known a priori
and the beam is too coherent ( i.e. too " cold " )
to be radiating clues at interference-pattern-producing slits.
So we can't know, not even in theory,
which slit the beam is passing though and everything is predictable;
the kilogram, meter and second are just
K, M and S tics of the _ Ideal _ laser.
Cosmicly, entropy in inversely related to gravity.
Gavitational energy was at it's highest 13.7 Giga_Years ago
and, according to Lambda-CDM, it's projected to totally dissipate.
Our Universe has a " known history " and a " projected future ",
not a birth date or a projected lifespan.
Cosmic energy is forever being consumed, spent, I posit;
it's what produced us and what will eventually kill us off.
Eric Gisse
> Hi Eric_Gisse, You told me something like:
> " Entropy is _defined_ as
> ' Boltzmanns_Constant * ln( Equation_Of_State ) '.
> I suggest opening an actual thermodynamics textbook.
>
> Your thermodynamics textbook sucks like a 'tard, Gisse.
When was the last time you opened a book?
>
> The word " Entropy " has a lot of definitions,
> you're refering to the " statistical thermodynamics " of an ideal gas.
> In the model, entropy is a measure of unpredictability.
No, that is still not what entropy is. Get an education.
[snip relf droppings]
BOBOBOnoBO®
> Hi Eric_Gisse, You told me something like:
> " Entropy is _defined_ as
> ' Boltzmanns_Constant * ln( Equation_Of_State ) '.
> I suggest opening an actual thermodynamics textbook.
>
> Your thermodynamics textbook sucks like a 'tard, Gisse.
>
Haha! You know what it's like to be sucked by a "'tard."
You've actually let one suck your dick! You've admitted it on Usenet.
So, what does a "'tard" suck like, Jeff? Did you look down and see
that Down's syndrome face pleasuring your cock? Did you keep your
gaze elsewhere, and try to pretend that it was a regular person giving
you head? Alt.punkers want to know all the details.
Keep in mind that in many states, "'tards" are not considered
competent to give consent, so make sure you don't write anything that
actually identifies the "'tard."
Imagine how embarrassing it'd be to go to prison for getting a blowjob
from one of them.
--Bryan
Jeff…Relf
I'm not so sure you can get an education.
Information Science has borrowed the word entropy
without understanding its original meaning... Pois é.
In I.S., higher entropy indicates higher information density,
less redundancy. For example, a well compressed file
is a good source of pseudorandom numbers,
...because it has high " entropy ".
In my experience, biologists understand the word entropy the best,
including its original meaning.
If I think someone is a biologist, I pay extra attention.
In the G.R. model, time is a spatial dimension,
so the notion of entropy does not exist in that model.
In quantum mechanical models,
an ideal laser, in ideal conditions, has no entropy,
and time is just T ticks, similar to the kilogram and the meter.
In relativistic field theory, given a metric and a light cone,
time is just another spatial dimension... Entropy is not a factor.
So Entropy ( a.k.a. the one-way arrow of time )
is primarily used in macroscopic, human scale, models.
And at that scale, entropy is like shit, spent energy.
As the known Universe spends energy, eventually creating/destroying us,
entropy goes up... that's the cosmic definition of entropy.
Jeff…Relf
I'm a 47 year old male who _ Might _ wind up
" dating " a 23 year old girl, Julie. Life is odd.
I like her, but her psychologist claims that
she has the " mentality of an 8 year old ".
I think she's quite smart myself... but what do I know.
We'll see what happens, probably nothing.
I much prefer cyber relationships over the face-to-face kind.
I sit at home on my computer, trying to avoid people,
and the girls come to me... it's odd.
Lane Straatman
"Jens Thoms Toerring" <j...@toerring.de> wrote in message
news:55eh69F...@mid.uni-berlin.de...
recently lost the Schwartzschild text I would read occasionally. As a final
project in that class, we had to create a star. Gives you a bit of a god
complex.
--
LS
galathaea
a graph of the temperature domminance can be seen here:
http://i17.tinypic.com/2zf37k0.png
the x coordinate
is the number of frames where the bottom
had a higher temperature than the top
divided by the total frames
the y coordinate is the time slices
this is a "running" or bayesian statistic
so that fluctuations will tend to dissipate
if there is true mean behavior
here we see it having early fluctations
and then sticking around 73%
( the middle line is the 50% predicted by 2nd law )
then
http://i16.tinypic.com/4hwsc2u.png
shows the actual temperatures over the 120s
red being bottom strata
green being top
the scale is from 220K to 320K
visually
the red clearly averages above the green
and the solid lines show the averages (271, 282)
i will extend the results
but already good data is accumulating...
Victor Bazarov
> Hi Galathaea,
> I noted that your computer simulation [..]
Would you please stop cross-posting this to comp.lang.c++?
It's not topical here. Thanks.
Jens Thoms Toerring
What's 0.01? Is that in seconds, nano-seconds, or something
else? And if it's seconds what are your reasons to choose such
a rather long time delta? How does it compare to the mean time
between collisions?
> http://i17.tinypic.com/2zf37k0.png
> the x coordinate
> is the number of frames where the bottom
> had a higher temperature than the top
> divided by the total frames
> the y coordinate is the time slices
This description is much too vague to make much sense. And,
BTW, there are no numbers or scales, there are just axes.
Can you give any convincing explanation why at first (for a
relatively short time) gets "warmer" at the bottom, then, for
some time things become "inverted", i.e. colder at the bottom,
and then slowly goes back to being "warmer"? Wouldn't you ex-
pect that, if there is the effect you are looking for, you'd
go more or less monotonically from your initial state (same
temperature everywhere) to the state you expect? Is the pat-
tern you got from that run repeated when you redo the run
several times with different starting values of the random
generator?
galathaea
> In comp.programming galathaea <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 12:38 am, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> > > but i have now done simulations for up to 120s
> > > which only takes about two and a half hours running time
> > > so i am starting to get some good statistics
>
> > > in particular
> > > i have one archived run i will use as a standard reference
>
> > > in this run
> > > there were 2000 particles
> > > the time delta was 0.01
>
> What's 0.01? Is that in seconds, nano-seconds, or something
> else? And if it's seconds what are your reasons to choose such
> a rather long time delta? How does it compare to the mean time
> between collisions?
.01 seconds was just an order of magnitude judgement
about when collisions would regularly be detected
at 0.5m radius particles
the interaction scale is ~2m
and with velocities regularly ~300m/s
i needed a timescale to bring distances to the order of a meter
.01s gives 6m
so we in the right order of magnitude
to be able to detect interactions
and this is verified as collisions now occur regularly
i do not know how common a practice this is
but it was commonly used when i was an undergraduate
by my senior advisor to get initial data
the idea was that parameters are easier to change than algorithms
if the need arises
so test early and often and verify when an effect arises
in this case i have an effect from basic collisions and gravity
i can increase the accuracy of the delta
but it is not immediately apparent
how that would change the qualitative effects already seen
> >http://i17.tinypic.com/2zf37k0.png
> > the x coordinate
> > is the number of frames where the bottom
> > had a higher temperature than the top
> > divided by the total frames
> > the y coordinate is the time slices
>
> This description is much too vague to make much sense. And,
> BTW, there are no numbers or scales, there are just axes.
i'm sorry
this is another habit from my scholastic simulations
this graph is defined so that
at each timeslice t
i calculate whether the bottom temperature
is greater than top
if so i add to a running sum "dominance"
and the total number of timeslices to that point is "trials"
and the graph is of dominance / trials
using this type of statistic
points early on only show the average over a few points
so you get a very good look at the fluctuation statistics
points from later on illustrate
the time scales that fluctuations take place on
and how quickly they dissolve into the mean behavior
eventually
if the statistics are normal
you get mean behavior steady
this what i meant by the graph being "bayesian"
i like to use these graphs
to convey all of this information succinctly
here
my advisor actually didn't like me using these graphs either
because he said that it is not commonly seen
the y axis is 0 to 1 (the ratio "successful" dominance)
the x axis is 0 to 120 seconds
> Can you give any convincing explanation why at first (for a
> relatively short time) gets "warmer" at the bottom, then, for
> some time things become "inverted", i.e. colder at the bottom,
> and then slowly goes back to being "warmer"? Wouldn't you ex-
> pect that, if there is the effect you are looking for, you'd
> go more or less monotonically from your initial state (same
> temperature everywhere) to the state you expect? Is the pat-
> tern you got from that run repeated when you redo the run
> several times with different starting values of the random
> generator?
the are regular fluctuations throughout the simulation
as predicted by statistical mechanics
and the bottom is sometimes cooler than the top
i hope with my explanation above
it is clearer then how to read the fluctuations early on
there is early on inversion
due to one of the fluctuations
followed by a brief period where the bottom dominates the top
followed by another fluctuation with inversion
it is natural to read off of the left side of the graph
that the time scales for these fluctuations are 5-15s
and it is clear from the trend moving to the right
that the bottom is maintaining a statistical dominance 70-80%
over the span of the graph
the "size" of the fluctuations decreases
to less than 5% their initial "small sample" size
indicating that the statistics are likely normal
and the trend developing is likely long term
galathaea
> In comp.programming galathaea <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 12:38 am, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> > > but i have now done simulations for up to 120s
> > > which only takes about two and a half hours running time
> > > so i am starting to get some good statistics
>
> > > in particular
> > > i have one archived run i will use as a standard reference
>
> > > in this run
> > > there were 2000 particles
> > > the time delta was 0.01
>
> What's 0.01? Is that in seconds, nano-seconds, or something
> else? And if it's seconds what are your reasons to choose such
> a rather long time delta? How does it compare to the mean time
> between collisions?
.01 seconds was just an order of magnitude judgement
about when collisions would regularly be detected
at 0.5m radius particles
the interaction scale is ~2m
and with velocities regularly ~300m/s
i needed a timescale to bring distances to the order of a meter
.01s gives 6m
so we in the right order of magnitude
to be able to detect interactions
and this is verified as collisions now occur regularly
i do not know how common a practice this is
but it was commonly used when i was an undergraduate
by my senior advisor to get initial data
the idea was that parameters are easier to change than algorithms
if the need arises
so test early and often and verify when an effect arises
in this case i have an effect from basic collisions and gravity
i can increase the accuracy of the delta
but it is not immediately apparent
how that would change the qualitative effects already seen
> >http://i17.tinypic.com/2zf37k0.png
> > the x coordinate
> > is the number of frames where the bottom
> > had a higher temperature than the top
> > divided by the total frames
> > the y coordinate is the time slices
>
> This description is much too vague to make much sense. And,
> BTW, there are no numbers or scales, there are just axes.
i'm sorry
> Can you give any convincing explanation why at first (for a
> relatively short time) gets "warmer" at the bottom, then, for
> some time things become "inverted", i.e. colder at the bottom,
> and then slowly goes back to being "warmer"? Wouldn't you ex-
> pect that, if there is the effect you are looking for, you'd
> go more or less monotonically from your initial state (same
> temperature everywhere) to the state you expect? Is the pat-
> tern you got from that run repeated when you redo the run
> several times with different starting values of the random
> generator?
the are regular fluctuations throughout the simulation
as predicted by statistical mechanics
and the bottom is sometimes cooler than the top
i hope with my explanation above
it is clearer then how to read the fluctuations early on
there is early on inversion
due to one of the fluctuations
followed by a brief period where the bottom dominates the top
followed by another fluctuation with inversion
it is natural to read off of the left side of the graph
that the time scales for these fluctuations are 5-15s
and it is clear from the trend moving to the right
that the bottom is maintaining a statistical dominance 70-80%
over the span of the graph
the "size" of the fluctuations decreases
to less than 5% their initial "small sample" size
indicating that the statistics are likely normal
and the trend developing is likely long term
also
the trend is consistent across runs of the simulator
galathaea
> On Mar 2, 11:29 pm, galath...@veawb.coop (galathaea) wrote:
>
> > he also proposed a way to violate the second law
>
> > -+-+-
>
> > gravity is the violator
>
> > maxwell, boltzmann, and loschmidt would argue
> > about temperature stratification in columns of gas
>
> > boltzmann and maxwell argued the column
> > must be the same temperature
>
> > loschmidt argued the column mst be warmer near the bottom
> > and cooler towards the top
>
> > they all agreed that if it was stratified
> > it would allow a perpetuum mobile of the second kind
>
> > loschmidt believed he had found a foreversource of energy
>
> > ^*^*^*^*^*^*..
>
> > roederich graeff has performed that experiment
> > and carefully noted a repeatable stratification
>
> > molecular simulations have predicted stratification
>
> > andreas trupp has derived it from very basic physics
>
> >http://users.aol.com/atrupp/loschmidt01.pdf
>
> > and there is even suggestion
> > that the troposphere of venus also evidences this stratification
> > there is no shame in pursuing possibility
>
> i accidentally let the engineer inside think too hard about this
>
> since my degree is in physics simulations
> and my career is in programming
> and i happened to have a simulation generator i have been building
> i generated a simulation for a gas in a column with gravity
>
> the simulation generator is my attempt at building
> a commercially viable product at home
> and although it still needs much work
> and doesn't generate the prettiest code yet
> i couldn't help seeing what it would give me here
>
> i have run some simulations
> playing around with the specifications
> and all my tests have validated loschmidt so far
>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> THE TEMPERATURE AT THE BOTTOM IS HOTTER THAN AT TOP
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> of course this seemed obvious to me
> because gravity accelerates particles moving down the column
> and slows them moving up
> but there is nothing better than seeing it validated in a simulation
>
> now
> currently particle collisions are very rare
> ( due to size of particles and iteration delta )
> and i haven't fully tested that handling yet
> so the values are not mixing the z components with the x,y
>
> collisions with the wall only affect x,y
> collisions with the floor or ceiling only affect z
>
> but i will play with that some more
>
> i have hand entered some comments
> and added output of the simulation
> ( the generator creates blanket output for the specification
> but litle descriptive output currently )
>
> anyways
> i cannot stress that i am well aware
> of many of the refactorings needed in this code
> as the generator placed code in places i normally wouldn't
>
> also since it was working with a larger model
> it has some stuff that can be completely refactored out
>
> despite that
> here is my generated loschmidt simulation
> ( in c++, from a generator written in OCaml )
> in one large file format (the only working generation right now)
>
[snip already archived generated code]
after performing some more optimisation transformations
i have been able to extend the simulations to
longer times
shorter deltas
current simulations are for 240 s
with 0.002s deltas
the same general trends are being found
loschmidt is still validated
with the same ~10 K stratification
~~..\
i am surprised no one has yet offered
a physical explanation that would explain or refute the simulation
or a generation error in any of the posted generations
i will post my most recent code tomorrow or friday
whenever i get the chance to generate the graphs
i may start looking into some experimental constructions
if this trend continues...