If there was going tp be a heat-death of the universe, would that be order or chaos?

[crayzz]

2) Quantum mechanics can suggest that until something interacts with classical physics you are in a cat in a box scenario. So absent of classical physics -- no a tree has both fallen and not fallen in the woods if there is no classical aspects of physics there to 'witness it'.

This is a common misconception. There's no hard line between quantum and classical physics;¹ classical systems are made up of quantum systems. There's no need for a "classical" system to witness a quantum event. "Witnessing" or "Measuring" is just what we call any interaction, and as such a quantum system interacting with another quantum system will constrain both systems. As quantum systems grow in size, with more and more discrete parts interacting, the probability distribution strongly narrows, so that by the time you have a few thousand molecules the quantum and classical predictions strongly agree with each other i.e. the population of the predicted probability distribution falls almost entirely in a very narrow region around a single point.

1: Indeed, that there isn't a hard line is a bit of a problem, since quantum mechanics contradicts general relativity and vice versa

[veti]

I disagree.

If there is no order without an observing intelligence, why is it not also the case that there is no chaos without an observing intelligence?

You're confusing chaos with disorder. Disorder can only be defined in relation to order, so yes, that requires observation. But chaos is an absence of purpose. Chaos is the only thing that can exist, when there is no observing intelligence.

Classically "Chaos" is how the universe began. Before there were titans, let alone gods, there was Chaos. Order only began to form when intelligence emerged. That wasn't a coincidence.

[Anymage]

Classically "Chaos" is how the universe began. Before there were titans, let alone gods, there was Chaos. Order only began to form when intelligence emerged. That wasn't a coincidence.

Show me how titans and gods can be empirically tested for. Since the heat death is talking about the eventual fate of our universe and not one of the fictional ones where gods and heroes regularly intervene to keep the cosmos on track.

You're certainly free to your personal subjective opinions about what "order" and "chaos" are. But other people are free to wonder what the specifics of your criteria are, and they're also free to have subjective personal opinions that might or might not align with yours. The problem with "order" and "chaos" as terms is that, unlike defined terms like "entropy", there are no objective measures that any two people can gather the same data and be sure that their positions agree.

[veti]

Show me how titans and gods can be empirically tested for. Since the heat death is talking about the eventual fate of our universe and not one of the fictional ones where gods and heroes regularly intervene to keep the cosmos on track.

You're certainly free to your personal subjective opinions about what "order" and "chaos" are. But other people are free to wonder what the specifics of your criteria are, and they're also free to have subjective personal opinions that might or might not align with yours. The problem with "order" and "chaos" as terms is that, unlike defined terms like "entropy", there are no objective measures that any two people can gather the same data and be sure that their positions agree.

The starting post of the thread highlighted subjectivity. It said:

it seems to me that that would be order, not chaos.

Does anyone agree or disagree? if neither, then what?

What is that, if not an invitation to discuss the meanings of "order" and "chaos" in this context?

Anyway, I mentioned "classical" chaos. The word itself is Greek, and according to Greek mythology "chaos" is what the universe emerged out of. Starting with titans, then gods, then worlds. I'm not suggesting that that is a plausible cosmology (I don't think there's any very interesting debate to be had on that, although I may be underestimating some people) - I'm suggesting that past usages of words, including "chaos", are relevant to how we should understand and use them today.

[Ixtellor]

This is a common misconception. There's no hard line between quantum and classical physics;¹ classical systems are made up of quantum systems. There's no need for a "classical" system to witness a quantum event. "Witnessing" or "Measuring" is just what we call any interaction, and as such a quantum system interacting with another quantum system will constrain both systems. As quantum systems grow in size, with more and more discrete parts interacting, the probability distribution strongly narrows, so that by the time you have a few thousand molecules the quantum and classical predictions strongly agree with each other i.e. the population of the predicted probability distribution falls almost entirely in a very narrow region around a single point.

1: Indeed, that there isn't a hard line is a bit of a problem, since quantum mechanics contradicts general relativity and vice versa

I'm no expert, but a quantom superpostion is just that until it is 'observed' or react with something (classical) that collapses the waveform. Right? (you mentioned molecules)
In classic we know location, velocity, etc in a quantum its in a superposition until 'observation.'

This is all in relation to the OP's thing about a tree falling in the woods and yes trees are made of many molecules, but I assumed he was using it as a metaphor and not a literal tree.

So I'm confused when you say there is no hardline when were talking about an exact location, velocity, etc versus an unbroken waveform of superposition --- it feels like a hardline (which is really just saying we dont understand reality yet)

[halfeye]

This is all in relation to the OP's thing about a tree falling in the woods and yes trees are made of many molecules, but I assumed he was using it as a metaphor and not a literal tree.

I was referring to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_t...ls_in_a_forest

Which is apparently literally about trees, though viewing them in a seemingly unlikely way, and nothing much to do with quanta at all.

[Captain Cap]

So I'm confused when you say there is no hardline when were talking about an exact location, velocity, etc versus an unbroken waveform of superposition --- it feels like a hardline (which is really just saying we dont understand reality yet)

It being a hardline is more an approximation, really.

Under the wave-particle duality, particles can be seen as traveling wave packets, which may be more or less localized (the more "concentrated" the packet, the less/more uncertain the particle's position/momentum, in accordance to Heisenberg's principle). You can extend this notion (sort of) to molecules and beyond, however, the larger the object becomes, the more negligible the uncertainty intrinsic to its position and velocity is, and we arrive at a point in which it becomes meaningless with respect to an operative definition of such quantities and other sources of error (for example: if you throw a ball, the deformations it'd go through due to internal/external forces acting on it would induce a much greater "uncertainty" on what we may define as the "ball's center" along the trajectory than whatever quantum fluctuation).

And that applies without calling into question gravity. If general relativity weren't a thing, there'd be no other shortcoming I'm aware of that would prevent us from describing macroscopic physics in terms of quantum mechanics, it would "just" be computationally prohibitive and not very productive.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

If I may return to evaporating black holes, then rather than the black hole evaporating to nothing, surely at some point the black hole would have lost enough mass for the gravity generated by the remaining matter in the singularity to be unable to keep the singularity intact, and all the matter trapped within would then explosively escape.

Feel free to say "no, because..."

[DavidSh]

If I may return to evaporating black holes, then rather than the black hole evaporating to nothing, surely at some point the black hole would have lost enough mass for the gravity generated by the remaining matter in the singularity to be unable to keep the singularity intact, and all the matter trapped within would then explosively escape.

Feel free to say "no, because..."

At least it isn't so clear. General Relativity doesn't give a minimum mass for a black hole, just a density requirement that increases as the mass decreases. With the relativity of simultaneity, how to figure the density inside the event horizon is beyond my understanding.

[gomipile]

If I may return to evaporating black holes, then rather than the black hole evaporating to nothing, surely at some point the black hole would have lost enough mass for the gravity generated by the remaining matter in the singularity to be unable to keep the singularity intact, and all the matter trapped within would then explosively escape.

Feel free to say "no, because..."

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ because that world-class powerlifter "surely" requires at least a working theory of quantum gravity to be evaluated and assessed. It probably should require a full theory of everything to evaluate and quantify, since a black hole at the end of the Hawking radiation evaporation process is by necessity pegging just... all the scales.

[halfeye]

If I may return to evaporating black holes, then rather than the black hole evaporating to nothing, surely at some point the black hole would have lost enough mass for the gravity generated by the remaining matter in the singularity to be unable to keep the singularity intact, and all the matter trapped within would then explosively escape.

Feel free to say "no, because..."

I see you felt free to take the mickey.

The rate of evaporation of the last of the mass is enough to be thought of as a very big bang indeed, compared to anything detonated on Earth, including all known volcanoes.

It's not quite a supernova, but I'm not sure even a nova gets as close.

[Captain Cap]

I see you felt free to take the mickey.

The rate of evaporation of the last of the mass is enough to be thought of as a very big bang indeed, compared to anything detonated on Earth, including all known volcanoes.

It's not quite a supernova, but I'm not sure even a nova gets as close.

To be fair, at that point we have the problem of GR meeting with QM, so any prediction of what's supposed to happen is to be taken with a grain of salt.

[Rockphed]

For all we know it could "simply" cap out in a very large neutron star. Internal structure of black holes is a very theoretical area of physics. We have some guesses based on how we think gravity works at high energies, but they are just extrapolations of unknown worth.

[Bohandas]

I'm no expert, but a quantom superpostion is just that until it is 'observed' or react with something (classical) that collapses the waveform. Right? (you mentioned molecules)
In classic we know location, velocity, etc in a quantum its in a superposition until 'observation.'

This is all in relation to the OP's thing about a tree falling in the woods and yes trees are made of many molecules, but I assumed he was using it as a metaphor and not a literal tree.

So I'm confused when you say there is no hardline when were talking about an exact location, velocity, etc versus an unbroken waveform of superposition --- it feels like a hardline (which is really just saying we dont understand reality yet)

Might be a refrence to the Wigner's Friend thought experiment. Imagine there's a cat in a box with a vial of poison whose opening or non opening is linked to a quantum event, and this box is inside of a larger box with a scientist who opens the first box. What the scientist finds when he opens the first box is indeterminate until someone opens the second box.

[Rydiro]

Maximum entropy is the configuration that suprises you the most.