>entropy always increases!Uhh, so scary, such an unavoidable physical limitation.What about the second derivative though?>actually, they're no physical law telling you that it can't be slowed down, sped up - you're completely free to set the rate at which it increases.So, basically it's not a big deal.Always increasing variables are not so special either - for example time is like that as well and no one is making a big deal of that.
>>16872007you just found a connection.time and entropy share a lot, they are definitely connected.there are initial attempts to deduce gravity from entropy (Verlinde, Maldacena).entropy is, in principle, just as mysterious as time and space, information and gravity.tangible and yet intangible>who stirs the sugar into the coffee if no one stirs it?
>>16872020shut the fuck up.entropy is this stupid formula with no intuition behind it.[eqn] \langle \lnρ \rangle = \int \rho\ln(ρ)[/eqn]
>>16872007>entropy *most probably* increases!fixed that for you. fluctuation theorem is a thing.
>>16873349Shannon entropy is not physical. It is as named such after the Jewish suggestion by Von Neumann to intentionally confuse people and conclude correctness by confusion. Which should be a logical fallacy but isn't.
>>16873349you will not find any physical quantity whose correct application will cause you more annoyance and incomprehension.tell us, which physical quantity are you integrating here?
>>16873929Energy levels of whatever system you’re considering.>b-b-but what’s energy learn differential geometry and how the energy functional relates to trajectories
>>16873995tell me the energy levels of an electron in a hydrogen atom using that faggy equation
>>16874008You seem familiar with it, so why should I? It’s a basic PDE.
>>16873995>learn differential geometry and how the energy functional relates to trajectoriesLagrangian application should be left to people calculating proper distance of backetball thrown by a trained nigger. Almost number one fallacy of the previous history of physics is to widely apply somewhat intuitive method of this kind to places where it could be applicable and places where it could be attached not. inb4 same people are trying to convince the rest with crap formulations like mentioned Shannon measure or Landauer principle, which are both bastard byproducts of human thought.
>>16874010i am familiar with it, and have never seen it derived with the shannon entropy. go ahead, show me
>>16873995>Energy levels of whatever system you’re consideringnot a quantity, you mean states
