- #71
twofish-quant
- 6,821
- 20
jambaugh said:Given the sub-additivity of quantum entropy, this objection needn't be applicable. We may observe parts of the universe increasing in entropy without the entropy of the whole changing... this occurs as the parts entangle over time.
This doesn't make sense to me. I have a cup of ice. There is an entropy associated with that cup of ice. (41 J/ (mol K)) Now if I watch a cup of ice melt into water and the entropy is now 70 J(mol K), are you trying to tell me that because of some weird quantum entanglement effect the entropy of the universe is constant? That doesn't make sense to me. Now you may be able to define some quantity that does stay constant, but that doesn't seem to have any connection with what an engineer would call entropy.
Along those same lines trying to define "the entropy of the universe" by adding the entropies of parts (e.g. by integrating an entropy density over the spatial universe) is not appropriate as it does not take into account spatially separated quantum correlations.
Doesn't make sense to me. I'm watching ice with an entropy of 41 J/(mol K) turn into water with an entropy of 70 J/(mol K). What's it quantum entangled with. Where is the quantum correlation? I'm watching ice melt. No quantum entanglements, that I can see.
What you seem to be saying is that anytime ice melts, then there is some weird quantum mechanical effect that causes something weird to happen in some other part of universe.
I really don't think this makes sense.
Again you can understand entropy of a system as the amount to which that system is entangled with the rest of the universe...
I'm just watching ice melt. Are you saying that I can't understand ice melting without quantum entanglements?