/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11151422

57KiB, 460x614, arGLvp6_460swp.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 09:19:57 2019 No.11151422 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11151429 >>11151450 >>11151488 >>11151514 >>11151533 >>11151548 >>11151686 >>11151769 >>11151835 >>11151950

What is the most stable state possible? When can matter no longer move or decay and be immune to entropy?

~S/$\S

~S/$\S Sat 16 Nov 2019 09:22:12 No.11151429 Report

Quoted By: >>11151548

>>11151422
Void is a stable state.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 09:22:42 No.11151430 Report

Quoted By: >>11151448

Actually the majority of hydrogen atoms formed in the big bang is still around, so the matter is pretty stable it seems.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 09:33:56 No.11151448 Report

Quoted By: >>11151458

>>11151430
Could you argue that since you can change the properties of the atom it isn't stable?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 09:36:13 No.11151450 Report

Quoted By: >>11151456

>>11151422
>immune to entropy
that's how I know you're retarded

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 09:41:35 No.11151456 Report

Quoted By: >>11151475 >>11151495 >>11151537

>>11151450
Okay retard tell me all about the entropic theory of quarks and gluons for which no microstate ensemble emerges

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 09:42:18 No.11151458 Report

Quoted By:

>>11151448
Maybe, to some degree it is "unstable", yes.
Nothing in the universe is "stable" then, probably.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 09:51:29 No.11151475 Report

Quoted By:

>>11151456
It's clear you're a dumb high schooler that has read a few wikipedia pages and now thinks he knows something.
Entropy is a property of matter it's not something that "affects" matter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 10:06:27 No.11151488 Report

Quoted By:

>>11151422
You'll find out immediately after you shuffle off your mortal coil

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 10:12:39 No.11151495 Report

Quoted By:

>>11151456
Are you retarded? $-\mathrm{tr} (\rho \log \rho)$ always works. Do you even know what half the words your typing mean?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1572041780427.jpg, 43KiB, 400x309

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 10:26:50 No.11151508 Report

Quoted By:

Bottom line is you can't have microstates of certain subatomic particles like gluons so yeah there's really no entropy there, unless you're willing to suggest you can have ensembles of gluons when they've never been isolated.... Also I fucked your mum's when I was in highschool and she was in a Denny's w.c. peeking at my biscuits through the stall so fuck right off with your seasonal bickering

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 10:34:20 No.11151514 Report

Quoted By: >>11151532

>>11151422
Why are trannies so scared of entropy?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 10:49:49 No.11151532 Report

Quoted By:

>>11151514
the letters rearrange to t y penor

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 10:50:36 No.11151533 Report

Quoted By:

>>11151422
>What is the most stable state possible?
Absolute chaos

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 10:52:26 No.11151537 Report

Quoted By: >>11152136

>>11151456
Calling someone a retard when you are misunderstanding something just makes you look even dumber

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 10:59:23 No.11151548 Report

Quoted By: >>11151555

>>11151422
What kind of entropy?

Theoretically, when everything turns to heat. Then it's stable in some average sense, unless you'd like to account for the expanding universe. Then this will never happen.

>>11151429
>false vacuum
Probably not. And even then, there are quantum fluctuations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 11:02:27 No.11151555 Report

Quoted By: >>11151592 >>11151788

>>11151548
>And even then, there are quantum fluctuations
You don't understand quantum mechanics

The vacuum is an energy eigenstate. It always stays a vacuum. Thermal equilibrium is an incoherent sum of energy eigenstates. It always stays in thermal equilibrium.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 11:22:30 No.11151592 Report

Quoted By: >>11151608

>>11151555
>you don't understand
No u. Undergrads are always so full of themselves.

It depends on what op exactly means with stable. If you ever read anything about dynamical systems you'd know that even in highly chaotic systems windows of order appear randomly. Would you call a soup of highly fluctuating particles stable if at any time just the "wrong" fluctuation might cause it tipping over to more ordered states locally and/or temporally?
Vacuum being the lowest energy eigenstate of some system doesn't change that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 11:30:57 No.11151608 Report

Quoted By: >>11151654

>>11151592
I'm not an undergrad. Dynamical systems applies to classical mechanics and not quantum mechanics in any direct way.

The vacuum being the lowest energy eigenstate very much means that it does not change in time. The vacuum is not a particular field configuration in the path integral, which is how you seem to want to think of it. The entire path integral describes the vacuum.

No need to get defensive. I am just pointing out that you have a misconception about quantum mechanics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 12:17:23 No.11151654 Report

Quoted By: >>11151763

>>11151608
>The vacuum being the lowest energy eigenstate very much means that it does not change in time
Then riddle me this: how is an eigenstate and its energy obtained?
I know you'll know the answer, but you forgot that this is an averaging process. The state you obtain is not at all static.

>The entire path integral describes the vacuum
Yes, and what does that imply for the result? (see above)

>No need to get defensive. I am just pointing out that you have a misconception about quantum mechanics
>if I disagree with someone, it must be the other person's fault because I perfectly understand everything

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 12:46:29 No.11151686 Report

Quoted By:

>>11151422
The state of Israel.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 13:39:28 No.11151763 Report

Quoted By: >>11151784 >>11151829

>>11151654
No you actually have a misconception about what a state means in quantum mechanics. If you are a grad student (and you sound like one, I mean that as a compliment) this is going to get you stuck understanding something at some point until you realize aha there really is a difference between a state and a configuration

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 13:43:42 No.11151769 Report

Quoted By:

>>11151422
You have to burn it down...

Ashes don't burn.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 14:05:02 No.11151784 Report

Quoted By: >>11151831

>>11151763
I don't know how you come to that conclusion. They're obviously different. Still, a state is an average.
Look:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state
Would you call this static or stable? Assuming we're talking about the vacuum of the standard model Lagrangian here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 14:09:19 No.11151788 Report

Quoted By:

>>11151555
>The vacuum is an energy eigenstate. It always stays a vacuum.

Our vacuum may very well be a false vacuum. Maybe on long enough timescales, it will transition to a lower, more decompactified energy state.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 14:25:45 No.11151806 Report

Quoted By:

True love is the only state that has no entropy?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 14:47:16 No.11151829 Report

Quoted By:

>>11151763
Suppose you are in the ground state of a harmonic oscillator. Can you spontaneously gain energy and go to another eigenstate? No. Does the ground state wavefunction include more position eigenstates than just the classical minimum of the potential? Yes. Do you spontaneously fluctuate to these position eigenstates? No.

Now say you have a true vacuum of the standard model. Are particles spontaneously created through quantum fluctuations? No. Does the vacuum wave functional include values for fields that are not in the classical minimum of the potential? Yes. Even perhaps values sitting near a different local minimum, if it exists? Yes. Do you spontaneously fluctuate to those field eigenstates? No.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 14:49:59 No.11151831 Report

Quoted By:

>>11151784
I meant to reply here

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 14:55:00 No.11151835 Report

Quoted By:

>>11151422
Were not sure if protons decay.
We've been looking but at the moment they are guessing it probably doesn't at all or at least untill alot long after the universe will be stellarfurious stage.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 16:13:52 No.11151950 Report

Quoted By:

>>11151422
>When can matter no longer move or decay and be immune to entropy?

When it turns into iron or cobalt through nuclear fission/fusion/decay.
Which begs the question, near the heat death of the universe, will the majority of matter be iron and cobalt? And would that mean the entire universe forms a giant super magnet? WTF kind of weird shit could happen if you had a magnet that's literally the size of the entire universe?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1572542138158.jpg, 127KiB, 500x500

Anonymous Sat 16 Nov 2019 17:45:52 No.11152136 Report

Quoted By:

>>11151537
I'll keep that in mind when I'm misunderstanding suckin dick in front of an expert like yourself

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches