We are doomed. We are going to die.
No, just you.
Ludwig Boltzmann's work was central to thermodynamics and the concept of entropy, which is a measure of a system's disorder. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of a closed system, like the universe, must always increase. This means the universe should eventually reach a state of complete disorder and uniform temperature, a "heat death."The paradox arises when you consider that if the universe were eternal, it should have already reached this state of maximum entropy. So why do we observe a universe that is so ordered, or in a state of low entropy?This led to the Boltzmann Brains thought experiment: If our universe is just a random fluctuation, it would be far more probable for a much smaller, conscious brain to randomly fluctuate into existence than for an entire, complex universe to do so.If something is possible to occur it must occur, probability is the degree of variation or freedom within a constrained set of possibilities. An indefinite improbability like a "Boltzmann brain" is therefore a logical impossibility, as it would be a state of complete unconstraint. A truly unconstrained state cannot produce any particular outcome because there are no rules to define it.
>>16909255Thermodynamics is jewish superstitious nonsense. Where did the energy initially arrive from if its suppose to be in finite supply?Total nonsense.
>>16909357Are you seriously asking what 1-1 equals?
>>16909255>heat deathOh boy.. just wait till you learn that you only have decades to live.
>>16909255Maybe, but the boundary conditions and large-scale evolution of the universe are still unknown (imo). More pressingly though, we are all going to die because we live in human bodies (or are human bodies, depending on your views). Life extension memes are not going to help anyone, even the rich.
>>16909487>Are you seriously asking what 1-1 equals?No, you stupid thermodynamicist. If your linear eschatology of time was even real, then the so-called "heat death" should have occurred an infinite amount of time ago.
>>16909518Only if you ignore everything we know about particle pair creation.
>>16909520Yeah I am going to ignore it because it isn't relevant, asshole.
>>16909521Isn't relevant except to disprove your retarded claim that would only make sense in an infinite universe where particle pair creation doesn't actually occur, so heat death can easily set in instead of being dispelled by the constant spontaneous flux of new particle pairs.
>>16909528Stfu. Your version of "heat death" is functionally no different to a big crunch. That's not what I'm talking about.
>>16909530Only if you ignore everything we know about particle pair annihilation. It sounds like you are just stuck in an 18th century mindset where mass was assumed to be a conserved quantity.,
>>16909533>non-sequitur babbleBlah blah blah
>>16909534Nope its not non-sequitur at all, its the reason you think heat death is still on the table because you still think mass is conserved instead of being constantly spontaneously created and annihilated in particle pairs.
>>16909537>its the reason you think heat death is still on the tableI said its false from the outset.>because you still think mass is conservedI'm talking about the 2nd law, not the 1st law.
>>16909255Startalk with Sean Carroll and Hawking radiation.https://youtu.be/041-nlqj7dM?t=531
>>16909255https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_recurrence_theorem
Black holes don't exist. Stuff like Hawking radiation is so silly because its Phycists inventing new physics to fix their last round of fake physics.
INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER
>>16909273Electrons and protons defy the 2nd law of thermodynamics, in that they don't decay into entropy.Some "Law"
>>16909521Correct, and well played
>>16910076Proton decay is speculated but never proven. The consensus is however that it happens. In 10^32 years a proton has 50% chance to decay. In 10^60 years all protons in the universe will irreversibly decay.
The physicist is the infinite goal post moving word salad generator.In their attempts to integrate towards Truth (by building a tower of babel that denies the existence of God while attempting to wrestle possession of God:Truth) they generate formulas with word salad boundary conditions. They can stare at the double-asymptote of 0 < x < c and 0Kelvin < x < cKelvin (the temperature at which mass is eradicated back into photons) for their entire life, even utilizing wick rotations in there equations for QFT, while QFT has been falsified by the fact that wave functions don't spread indefinitely (like predicted by Shrodinger), and insist on being treated like a siloed domain while robbing from math, language and cognition (separate domains) and can't even predict anything past a h-bar/2 50% chance at best, insisting their coin flips describe reality.Spacetime is supposedly "universal" yet their photons don't experience it The second law of thermodynamics; a law that doesn't apply to the electron or the proton, or any chemical element that is stable without radioactive decay, isn't universal. Their constants aren't constant and instead conform to environmental conditions.They're the undisputed kings of arrogance and goal-post moving word salad generators.
>>16910081There's no empirical proof for that assertion whatsoever. Pure speculation that denies the Compton frequency and zitterbewegung as anomalies you don't need to explain.
>>16910085>They can stare at the double-asymptote of 0 < x < c and 0Kelvin < x < cKelvin All the whole, while treating "time" as imaginary they deny the complex unit circle which insists all motion and temperature must have the pi to tau phase boundary they can't see It's Tabula Rasa without monkeys that can make skyscrapers if trained well. Like, no pre-existing architecture or potential, just a blank slate that every other species of life starts with, but doesn't.They placed their entire faith on John Locke, a retard that was charitably pardoned from eviceration by Liebniz to spare him the posthumous embarrassment of being a midwit that can only learn by rote
The physicist falls in love on pornhub while their chemicals chemical, of which the controlled release thereof remains but a mystery to them, despairing unto death with terminal illness while the pragmatically hopeful outlives them in almost every metric when battling terminal illness with faith and hope the physicist lacks.
If spacetime is fundamental, then how can the photon be unperturbed by time and distance? Who knows, but we have word salad in the lorentz formula to dissuade the conceptualization.
What is gravity? Who knows but it's purportedlt curves that fundamental substrate called spacetime, despite the fact that curving spacetime to produce mass is not possible in the first place; it just spontaneously makes itself and then persists for the entire history of the universe. No reasons why anything, no explanation for how; just is. It's like a third grader that never moves past basic concepts. Wulp, we can just move the goalposts and steal some more from math, an abstract mental construct and add more word salad as a patch that says: "don't think in mysterious ways; only I'm allowed to masturbate in public"
>gets handed a bi-quaternionic structure by Maxwell, immediately reduces it into vectorized math claiming to understand EM better than the one who handed them the unification>Gets handed a Theological description of the laws of motion by newton, immediately removes God from it.That's just one of the many ways the physicist lives in denial of the source of their doctrine
>>16910098>Steals Newton's integral calculus>Steals Liebniz' derivitve calculusRemoves the theological origin both mathematicians used to arrive at their conclusions>Pretends to be enlightenedPhysicists that believe in domain sovereignty declaring category error need to learn how to explain physics without math, language, or cognition since those are category errors in their usage.Physics is not mental, so do it without mental constructsHow many ideas can you fit on the head of a pin?
The sheer amount of selective amputation and plagiarism of ideas pioneered by Deists who ascribe their eureka moments to divine revelation, only to later be stolen by physicists and falsely represented is a price the general public demands compensation for.If you want to forward a framework that negates God, do it without stealing the ideas of Deists like Planck, Shrodinger, Newton, Liebniz, Maxwell, and even Einstein who spent the rest of his life declaring God doesn't play dice with the Universe. You all have overstepped your domain by several magnitudes for the sake of godless heathens who have no respect for the faith of the Field's foundation, which you haven't advanced in over 100 years other than smashing some protons together; observing God repair your vacuum shear, and then declaring the observation the discovery of "particles" that can't and don't exist in any stable form throughout reality.A thing that shows up for 1*10^-27s and 1*10^-25s only to disappear again isn't a fundamental particles; it's a repair event for specific vacuum destabilizing collisions that result in less mass and energy than what went into them
>>16909542>I said its false from the outset.No, you implied it would be inherently necessary in an infinite time span because you were trying to falsify the possibility of an infinite universe, not heat death, but even if this universe is infinite, heat death is off the table because of particle pairing.>I'm talking about the 2nd law, not the 1st law.Both laws only apply to closed systems, so trying to apply it to the whole of an infinite existence is the nonsensical part.
>>16910085>>16910098>>16910100>>16910104You are making it sound almost like they as scientists just threw a bunch of shit at the wall and the stuff that stuck and actually produced value over time and was utilized by a wide variety of scientists to be formalized and utilized it into a hardened foundation while you are still lapping up the runny shit from the failed hypothesis of random superstitious neurotic scientists you came to idolize while trying to produce something other than more diarrhetic filth of your own.
>>16911008Not an argument. That's a justification for ontological fraud. I'll take the concession
