Trajectory branching in Liouville space as the source of irreversibility
in [Math]
|
Prev: Pasting Lemma
Next: a question on differentiability
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 5 Jun 2010 07:29 Han de Bruijn wrote on Sat, 05 Jun 2010 03:24:30 -0700: > On 3 jun, 17:42, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> Han de Bruijn wrote on Wed, 02 Jun 2010 04:33:26 -0700: > >> > On Jun 1, 6:31 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez >> > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> >> >> Han de Bruijn wrote on Tue, 01 Jun 2010 04:15:09 -0700: >> >> >> > On May 31, 4:58 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez >> >> > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> TRAJECTORY BRANCHING IN LIOUVILLE SPACE AS THE SOURCE OF >> >> >> IRREVERSIBILITY >> >> >> > [ .. snip .. ] >> >> >> > Believe me: your theory is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Since you've >> >> > ignored a previous posting of mine about the subject, I'll post it >> >> > here again. >> >> >> Sorry, I believed that it was some kind of mathematicians joke, but >> >> now I see that you pretend to be serious :-D >> >> >> (...) >> >> >> > If Numerical Approximations of physical phenomena are to be >> >> > considered as a fundamental tip hint, then the following is a >> >> > relevant reference. And it is SIMPLE and straightforard >> >> > mathematics. Contrary to yours. >> >> >> >http://hdebruijn.soo.dto.tudelft.nl/jaar2004/purified.pdf >> >> >> This is an completely irrelevant reference for the goal of obtaining >> >> a *grand* theory of irreversibility. >> >> > There IS NO *grand* theory of irreversibility. And there NEVER will >> > be one of the kind. The Ultimate Arrogance of Physics all over the >> > place. >> >> If you read the first message you would see that I argue why cannot >> exist an "ultimate theory" (as arrogant but misinformed physicists >> claim). You confound that with a "grand theory" which is already at >> hand. > > ?? I will explain your confusion. An "ultimate theory" would be a theory that explain all phenomena both today and in future (always). A "grand theory" is one that can explain all or almost all what is known today, but probably will be improved by future theories. >> >> It would be needed to apply about a dozen of approximations to the >> >> general theory described in the OP before deriving the simplistic >> >> equations (e.g. the diffusion equations in page 4) that you are >> >> using. >> >> > Not "the diffusion equations" but the CONVECTION part of the >> > equations is relevant. (The article handles convection _and_ >> > diffusion, BTW, for some other, more mundane purposes. It's not meant >> > as a *grand* theory, of course). >> >> I was refering to the diffusion equations that *you* give in the page 4 >> when *you* write "analysis of Diffusion", "in case of pure diffusion", >> etc. I was referening to those approx. equations therein. >> >> Moreover, you seem to be confounding the modern usage of the terms >> convention and advenction. Many people uses the term convention as >> including both advenction and diffusion. I.e. they treat diffusion as a >> subclass of convention. > > The fact alone that you cannot even spell the words "convection" and > "advection" correctly is enough evidence: that Numerical Analysis is not > your territory. English is my third language and I can spell perfectly the words in my two previous languages. Only a naive guy as you would believe that "Numerical Analysis" has something to see with spelling words correctly in English :-D > And no, diffusion is definitely NOT a subclass of > convection. But I agree that many people are incompetent. As said it is only a question of conventions and naming. In principle you can call them alpha and beta, that is unimportant. The fact that you are very interested in emphasizing trivial issues about how the English language is used reveals who is here the incompetent :-D >> In any case, this are only conventions and naming. The IMPORTANT point >> is that everything in your equations is highly approximated and limited >> in scope, and thus *irrelevant* when studing more general experimental >> situations. > > I see now that my article indeed is too much off-topic with respect to > the subject of this thread to be convincing. Therefore I've decided to > start up another of my free projects. And devise a writeup which _is_ > entirely devoted to Time Reversal. As soon as I find time. > >> (...) >> >> >> There is also some wrong statements in that work. For instance, your >> >> claim that a flow of heat from a low temperature region to a high >> >> temperature region violates the Second law of thermodynamics is not >> >> all right. >> >> > The context of the article is clearly classical _macroscopic_ >> > physics. And my claim is obviously correct in that realm. >> >> Yours continues being wrong because the modifications to the equations >> are compatible with the Second law in the same domain. Moreover, the >> flow from low to hot regions is also permitted above the micro and >> nano-scale. It can happen for systems with N >> 10^23. Others and me >> already wrote about that. The relevant literature was already cited. > > In your SF literature maybe yes. But not in my world. Scientists study the world. Psychiatrist study *your* world. >> (...) >> >> >> > In this article it is demonstrated that the Numerical >> >> > Approximation of convection (and diffusion) in fluid flow IS >> >> > irreversible from the very start. This has been known for a long >> >> > time >> >> >> Yes, a numerical approximation to an irreversible equation is... >> >> irreversible. >> >> > Oh no, I've proved that ANY numerical approximation to a _reversible_ >> > equation - namely pure convection - is ALWAYS irreversible. And that >> > must come as a surprise, even for you. >> >> Sorry, but it is not a surprise. I have read so bogus claims for >> several years now. It always happen that those people uses what van >> Kampen correctly named "mathematical funambulism". When the numerical >> approximation to a reversible equation is CORRECTLY done the result is >> reversible. > > Nonsense, nonsense and nonsense. And there are sooo many little names. Nor this reaction is a surprise! (...) -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: Han de Bruijn on 6 Jun 2010 10:31 On 5 jun, 13:29, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > Han de Bruijn wrote on Sat, 05 Jun 2010 03:24:30 -0700: > > > On 3 jun, 17:42, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > >> Han de Bruijn wrote on Wed, 02 Jun 2010 04:33:26 -0700: > > >> > On Jun 1, 6:31 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > >> > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > > >> >> Han de Bruijn wrote on Tue, 01 Jun 2010 04:15:09 -0700: > > >> >> > On May 31, 4:58 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > >> >> > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> TRAJECTORY BRANCHING IN LIOUVILLE SPACE AS THE SOURCE OF > >> >> >> IRREVERSIBILITY > > >> >> > [ .. snip .. ] > > >> >> > Believe me: your theory is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Since you've > >> >> > ignored a previous posting of mine about the subject, I'll post it > >> >> > here again. > > >> >> Sorry, I believed that it was some kind of mathematicians joke, but > >> >> now I see that you pretend to be serious :-D > > >> >> (...) > > >> >> > If Numerical Approximations of physical phenomena are to be > >> >> > considered as a fundamental tip hint, then the following is a > >> >> > relevant reference. And it is SIMPLE and straightforard > >> >> > mathematics. Contrary to yours. > > >> >> >http://hdebruijn.soo.dto.tudelft.nl/jaar2004/purified.pdf > > >> >> This is an completely irrelevant reference for the goal of obtaining > >> >> a *grand* theory of irreversibility. > > >> > There IS NO *grand* theory of irreversibility. And there NEVER will > >> > be one of the kind. The Ultimate Arrogance of Physics all over the > >> > place. > > >> If you read the first message you would see that I argue why cannot > >> exist an "ultimate theory" (as arrogant but misinformed physicists > >> claim). You confound that with a "grand theory" which is already at > >> hand. > > > ?? > > I will explain your confusion. An "ultimate theory" would be a > theory that explain all phenomena both today and in future (always). > > A "grand theory" is one that can explain all or almost all what is > known today, but probably will be improved by future theories. > > >> >> It would be needed to apply about a dozen of approximations to the > >> >> general theory described in the OP before deriving the simplistic > >> >> equations (e.g. the diffusion equations in page 4) that you are > >> >> using. > > >> > Not "the diffusion equations" but the CONVECTION part of the > >> > equations is relevant. (The article handles convection _and_ > >> > diffusion, BTW, for some other, more mundane purposes. It's not meant > >> > as a *grand* theory, of course). > > >> I was refering to the diffusion equations that *you* give in the page 4 > >> when *you* write "analysis of Diffusion", "in case of pure diffusion", > >> etc. I was referening to those approx. equations therein. > > >> Moreover, you seem to be confounding the modern usage of the terms > >> convention and advenction. Many people uses the term convention as > >> including both advenction and diffusion. I.e. they treat diffusion as a > >> subclass of convention. > > > The fact alone that you cannot even spell the words "convection" and > > "advection" correctly is enough evidence: that Numerical Analysis is not > > your territory. > > English is my third language and I can spell perfectly the words in my > two previous languages. Only a naive guy as you would believe that > "Numerical Analysis" has something to see with spelling words correctly > in English :-D Once you've used these words frequently enough, which would happen if you _were_ an expert in the field, you would spell them correctly by routine, as I do. > > And no, diffusion is definitely NOT a subclass of > > convection. But I agree that many people are incompetent. > > As said it is only a question of conventions and naming. In principle you > can call them alpha and beta, that is unimportant. The fact that you are > very interested in emphasizing trivial issues about how the English > language is used reveals who is here the incompetent :-D > >> In any case, this are only conventions and naming. The IMPORTANT point > >> is that everything in your equations is highly approximated and limited > >> in scope, and thus *irrelevant* when studing more general experimental > >> situations. > > > I see now that my article indeed is too much off-topic with respect to > > the subject of this thread to be convincing. Therefore I've decided to > > start up another of my free projects. And devise a writeup which _is_ > > entirely devoted to Time Reversal. As soon as I find time. > > >> (...) > > >> >> There is also some wrong statements in that work. For instance, your > >> >> claim that a flow of heat from a low temperature region to a high > >> >> temperature region violates the Second law of thermodynamics is not > >> >> all right. > > >> > The context of the article is clearly classical _macroscopic_ > >> > physics. And my claim is obviously correct in that realm. > > >> Yours continues being wrong because the modifications to the equations > >> are compatible with the Second law in the same domain. Moreover, the > >> flow from low to hot regions is also permitted above the micro and > >> nano-scale. It can happen for systems with N >> 10^23. Others and me > >> already wrote about that. The relevant literature was already cited. > > > In your SF literature maybe yes. But not in my world. > > Scientists study the world. Psychiatrist study *your* world. No comment on personal attacks in the first place. Second, just GIVE the world that Perpetuum Mobilae. And the unlimited source of energy that's so desperately needed. And stop blathering about it. But I am quite sure that such a thing is impossible. > >> (...) > > >> >> > In this article it is demonstrated that the Numerical > >> >> > Approximation of convection (and diffusion) in fluid flow IS > >> >> > irreversible from the very start. This has been known for a long > >> >> > time > > >> >> Yes, a numerical approximation to an irreversible equation is... > >> >> irreversible. > > >> > Oh no, I've proved that ANY numerical approximation to a _reversible_ > >> > equation - namely pure convection - is ALWAYS irreversible. And that > >> > must come as a surprise, even for you. > > >> Sorry, but it is not a surprise. I have read so bogus claims for > >> several years now. It always happen that those people uses what van > >> Kampen correctly named "mathematical funambulism". When the numerical > >> approximation to a reversible equation is CORRECTLY done the result is > >> reversible. > > > Nonsense, nonsense and nonsense. And there are sooo many little names. > > Nor this reaction is a surprise! > > (...) > > --http://www.canonicalscience.org/ > > BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/ca...- Han de Bruijn
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 6 Jun 2010 19:06 Han de Bruijn wrote on Sun, 06 Jun 2010 07:31:08 -0700: > On 5 jun, 13:29, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > >> Han de Bruijn wrote on Sat, 05 Jun 2010 03:24:30 -0700: >> >> > On 3 jun, 17:42, "Juan R." González-Álvarez >> > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> >> Han de Bruijn wrote on Wed, 02 Jun 2010 04:33:26 -0700: >> >> >> > On Jun 1, 6:31 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez >> >> > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Han de Bruijn wrote on Tue, 01 Jun 2010 04:15:09 -0700: >> >> >> >> > On May 31, 4:58 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez >> >> >> > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> TRAJECTORY BRANCHING IN LIOUVILLE SPACE AS THE SOURCE OF >> >> >> >> IRREVERSIBILITY >> >> >> >> > [ .. snip .. ] >> >> >> >> > Believe me: your theory is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Since you've >> >> >> > ignored a previous posting of mine about the subject, I'll post >> >> >> > it here again. >> >> >> >> Sorry, I believed that it was some kind of mathematicians joke, >> >> >> but now I see that you pretend to be serious :-D >> >> >> >> (...) >> >> >> >> > If Numerical Approximations of physical phenomena are to be >> >> >> > considered as a fundamental tip hint, then the following is a >> >> >> > relevant reference. And it is SIMPLE and straightforard >> >> >> > mathematics. Contrary to yours. >> >> >> >> >http://hdebruijn.soo.dto.tudelft.nl/jaar2004/purified.pdf >> >> >> >> This is an completely irrelevant reference for the goal of >> >> >> obtaining a *grand* theory of irreversibility. >> >> >> > There IS NO *grand* theory of irreversibility. And there NEVER >> >> > will be one of the kind. The Ultimate Arrogance of Physics all >> >> > over the place. >> >> >> If you read the first message you would see that I argue why cannot >> >> exist an "ultimate theory" (as arrogant but misinformed physicists >> >> claim). You confound that with a "grand theory" which is already at >> >> hand. >> >> > ?? >> >> I will explain your confusion. An "ultimate theory" would be a theory >> that explain all phenomena both today and in future (always). >> >> A "grand theory" is one that can explain all or almost all what is >> known today, but probably will be improved by future theories. >> >> >> >> It would be needed to apply about a dozen of approximations to >> >> >> the general theory described in the OP before deriving the >> >> >> simplistic equations (e.g. the diffusion equations in page 4) >> >> >> that you are using. >> >> >> > Not "the diffusion equations" but the CONVECTION part of the >> >> > equations is relevant. (The article handles convection _and_ >> >> > diffusion, BTW, for some other, more mundane purposes. It's not >> >> > meant as a *grand* theory, of course). >> >> >> I was refering to the diffusion equations that *you* give in the >> >> page 4 when *you* write "analysis of Diffusion", "in case of pure >> >> diffusion", etc. I was referening to those approx. equations >> >> therein. >> >> >> Moreover, you seem to be confounding the modern usage of the terms >> >> convention and advenction. Many people uses the term convention as >> >> including both advenction and diffusion. I.e. they treat diffusion >> >> as a subclass of convention. >> >> > The fact alone that you cannot even spell the words "convection" and >> > "advection" correctly is enough evidence: that Numerical Analysis is >> > not your territory. >> >> English is my third language and I can spell perfectly the words in my >> two previous languages. Only a naive guy as you would believe that >> "Numerical Analysis" has something to see with spelling words correctly >> in English :-D > > Once you've used these words frequently enough, which would happen if > you _were_ an expert in the field, you would spell them correctly by > routine, as I do. You miss that when one changes of field and stop writting some words for some time, one can just forget how to write them until one reminds. You wrote that your theory is "straightforard mathematics". Apply yourself your straw-man argument and conclude that you do not know if it is straightforward mathematics because of spelling issues :-D But the irony is that you have correctly spelled the words, however, failed to use them in the modern physical/chemical/engineering sense (where diffusion is defined as a subclass of convention). Something that you reject below again, because confused about the physics (but spelling correctly at least :-D) >> > And no, diffusion is definitely NOT a subclass of convection. But I >> > agree that many people are incompetent. >> >> As said it is only a question of conventions and naming. In principle >> you can call them alpha and beta, that is unimportant. The fact that >> you are very interested in emphasizing trivial issues about how the >> English language is used reveals who is here the incompetent :-D > >> >> In any case, this are only conventions and naming. The IMPORTANT >> >> point is that everything in your equations is highly approximated >> >> and limited in scope, and thus *irrelevant* when studing more >> >> general experimental situations. >> >> > I see now that my article indeed is too much off-topic with respect >> > to the subject of this thread to be convincing. Therefore I've >> > decided to start up another of my free projects. And devise a writeup >> > which _is_ entirely devoted to Time Reversal. As soon as I find time. >> >> >> (...) >> >> >> >> There is also some wrong statements in that work. For instance, >> >> >> your claim that a flow of heat from a low temperature region to a >> >> >> high temperature region violates the Second law of thermodynamics >> >> >> is not all right. >> >> >> > The context of the article is clearly classical _macroscopic_ >> >> > physics. And my claim is obviously correct in that realm. >> >> >> Yours continues being wrong because the modifications to the >> >> equations are compatible with the Second law in the same domain. >> >> Moreover, the flow from low to hot regions is also permitted above >> >> the micro and nano-scale. It can happen for systems with N >> 10^23. >> >> Others and me already wrote about that. The relevant literature was >> >> already cited. >> >> > In your SF literature maybe yes. But not in my world. >> >> Scientists study the world. Psychiatrist study *your* world. > > No comment on personal attacks in the first place. First attacks as your previous "The Ultimate Arrogance" for referring to available grand theories or "that many people are incompetent" when discussing modern convenia in the field. > Second, just GIVE the > world that Perpetuum Mobilae. And the unlimited source of energy that's > so desperately needed. And stop blathering about it. But I am quite sure > that such a thing is impossible. No I have not claimed Perpetuum Mobilae nor other fantasies only in your brain. This is not just a reflect of your deep ignorance of those topics, but you cannot even read the messages. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: Han de Bruijn on 7 Jun 2010 03:30 On Jun 7, 1:06 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: [ .. snip things done .. ] > Han de Bruijn wrote on Sun, 06 Jun 2010 07:31:08 -0700: > > > No comment on personal attacks in the first place. > > First attacks as your previous "The Ultimate Arrogance" for referring to > available grand theories or "that many people are incompetent" when discussing > modern convenia in the field. Those were attacks on a discipline, and on dumb group consensus, but no attacks on you personally. > > Second, just GIVE the > > world that Perpetuum Mobilae. And the unlimited source of energy that's > > so desperately needed. And stop blathering about it. But I am quite sure > > that such a thing is impossible. > > No I have not claimed Perpetuum Mobilae nor other fantasies only in your brain. > This is not just a reflect of your deep ignorance of those topics, but you > cannot even read the messages. Huh .. ?? If heat can spontaneously flow from low temperature to high temperature, as you have claimed, than I can devise an engine running between those two (high -> low) temperatures. And have plenty of free and costless energy. So you _have_ claimed a Perpetuum Mobilae. > --http://www.canonicalscience.org/ > > BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/ca... Han de Bruijn
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 7 Jun 2010 06:56
Han de Bruijn wrote on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 00:30:36 -0700: > On Jun 7, 1:06 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > > [ .. snip things done .. ] > >> Han de Bruijn wrote on Sun, 06 Jun 2010 07:31:08 -0700: >> >> > No comment on personal attacks in the first place. >> >> First attacks as your previous "The Ultimate Arrogance" for referring >> to available grand theories or "that many people are incompetent" when >> discussing modern convenia in the field. > > Those were attacks on a discipline, and on dumb group consensus, but no > attacks on you personally. You wrote your "The Ultimate Arrogance" in direct reply to my phrase about obtaining a *grand* theory of irreversibility. You wrote your "many people are incompetent" in direct reply to my phrase about how diffusion is considered to be a subclass of convection. You have sniped now all that, but it is still available in the previous messages in this thread. >> > Second, just GIVE the >> > world that Perpetuum Mobilae. And the unlimited source of energy >> > that's so desperately needed. And stop blathering about it. But I am >> > quite sure that such a thing is impossible. >> >> No I have not claimed Perpetuum Mobilae nor other fantasies only in >> your brain. This is not just a reflect of your deep ignorance of those >> topics, but you cannot even read the messages. > > Huh .. ?? If heat can spontaneously flow from low temperature to high > temperature, as you have claimed, than I can devise an engine running > between those two (high -> low) temperatures. And have plenty of free > and costless energy. So you _have_ claimed a Perpetuum Mobilae. I REPEAT, do NOT attribute YOUR mistakes and silly claims to others. YOU have done *twice* the claim about /Perpetuum Mobilae/. Neither I nor the other authors of the references I alluded have done YOUR WRONG claims. I REPEAT, this is not just a reflect of your deep ignorance of those topics, but you do NOT read the messages sistematically correcting your silly claims about others. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |