More like entropy gets to us, sooner or later...

How do you have gas presure without the necessary antecedent of a container if entropy is still a thing?! Space is fake!!!!

@@TheOne10525 Might be funny if you were trolling... this is a long way from your flat-earth, conspiracy theory, biblical literalist content that you normally consume. What are you doing here? Seriously: if you came to learn, don't heckle with your FE nonsense. If you came to ask serious questions from a different crowd than you normally hang with, then ask on a post for that purpose rather than non-sequitor replies to other questions, and be receptive to actually getting (and understanding) the answer rather than just babbling the same stupid thing over and over no matter how many times it's been explained. Go pick on Thunderf00t: you'll ether learn or be destroyed. Either outcome is fine as far as the rest of us are concerned.

1. Yeah... the universe does that a lot. ;) As in most cases when questions start with "But the universe does X, doesn't that violate Y?" the answer is likely "Because the universe is expanding, so NOT Y". For example, as light redshifts as it travels across vast distances, it loses energy. But that energy doesn't _go_ anywhere, so doesn't that violate Conservation of Energy? Well, the universe is expanding, and that means it is a non-inertial reference frame, so energy is not conserved. In this case, I suspect that something similar could be said, along the lines of that because the universe is expanding, it _acts as if_ it were not a closed system, _even though_ it may not have anything outside of itself with which to interact and thus is definitionally a closed system. Even worse, the _observable_ universe's expansion is accelerating, which means that _it_ is _definitely not_ a closed system; the cosmic horizon generated by that expansion has stuff flowing across it, "exiting" the observable universe all the time. Whole galaxies disappear beyond it, in fact, so the observable universe is _certainly_ not a closed system. 2. I think this is a result of Dr. Carroll taking some shortcuts since he didn't want to go into too much detail. I suspect it isn't _just_ the anthropic principle that refutes the recurrence objection, but rather the combination of the anthropic principle and the Copernican principle, which together say that we must necessarily be not only in a phase of the universe in which we can exist, but with overwhelming probability we must also be in a _typical example_ of such a phase. Since the overwhelmingly large probability for such phases is that you are a Boltzmann Brain that just popped into existence as you are reading this, with the memories of what came before already in place, and will perish immediately after reading this, yet that is clearly not the case, then the anthropic principle alone doesn't completely defeat the recurrence objection.

fantastic. It seems so simple...

that's the reason that inflation was necessary

That is an amazing and powerful demonstration! I'd love to congratulate that teacher on a job well done!

Brazil nuts rise to the top when you vibrate a can of mixed nuts. Again, the denser stuff floats rather than sinks, increasing potential energy. I like to think the same principle is at work in any endothermic reaction: entropy trumps energy. The flow of energy/temperature is just a manifestation of the larger rule of increasing entropy, and if other forms of entropy are present it can dominate.

@@JohnDlugosz Um... sorry, but... what?? First of all, brazil nuts are not a particularly dense nut. They're less dense than almonds and cashews, more dense than peanuts and pecans. Their bulk density (including the spaces between them in a typical random spacial orientation) is also middle-of-the-road, significantly lower than peanuts, a little higher than almonds, and quite a bit higher than walnuts or pecans. Also, I'm pretty sure that after they have risen to the top, the total entropy of the container has _decreased_ (there are many more ways for them to be randomly distributed than to be all on the top, just like the coffee and cream example). Rather, the reason they rise to the top is simply due to their size and shape; they are larger, so they would need to displace and move aside many more smaller nuts in order to descend, where if one of them moves upward, many more smaller nuts can move downward to compensate. Though this does decrease entropy, it is allowed because by vibrating the container, you are inputting energy (and thus it is very much _not_ a closed system). Whatever means you use to vibrate them, whether a machine or your own body, you will be increasing the entropy of the universe more than the small decrease of energy from the more orderly resulting orientations of the nuts. The potential energy of the container should remain approximately the same, since they are of average density. Effectively, this is the opposite situation compared to what happened in the demonstration described. In the demonstration, an initially ordered, low-entropy configuration moved, as a closed system, toward a higher-entropy state, in spite of the fact that potential energy increased in order to do so. In the nuts example, an initially disordered, high-entropy configuration moved, as an _open_ system, toward a lower-entropy state with the nuts in a more ordered configuration, with negligible change in potential energy.

@@JohnDlugosz The unmixing of the mixed nuts, that does illustrate something, but I believe it's not applicable for illustrating entropy effect. I think the mixed nuts case cannot be approximated in some form of idealized case. To develop a visualization we must simplify. Among the most powerful simplifications is to treat the case as frictionless. For comparison: brownian motion of particles with a higher specific density than water. Brownian motion: the particles remain in suspension when the randomness introduced by being randomly buffeted is larger than the gravity bias. This system proceeds to an equilibrium state. We know it's an equilibrium state because the equilibrium can be shifted: increase the gravity bias with centrifugation. If you spin fast enough the G-load wins the day: particles go out of suspension. Now the mixed nuts. Let the large nuts have a slightly higher specific density than the overall nut mix. Then the vibration will still make the bigger nuts migrate _upwards_. (Both with 1 G and with higher G-load) That is the opposite of the result in the brownian motion case. This shows that in the case of the mixed nuts the simplification of ignoring friction is _not valid_. The mixed nuts unmixing does illustrate something, but not entropy effect. Endothermic process Yeah, the mixing of air and Nitrogen dioxide is endothermic. In the final state the gravitational potential energy is higher than in the starting state. Accordingly from start to end the kinetic energy has decreased. As we know, a general class of endothermic processes is a salt getting dissolved in a polar solvent (dissolving in water the most common example, of course) About endothermic chemical reaction. Well, with chemical reaction it's more complicated. Let's say you have molecule A and molecule B, and they can combine to form molecule AB, endothermically. As we know, chemical reaction is a two-way street. That means that in the absence of any other process the concentration of AB will remain very low; any AB that is formed has a high probability of falling apart again. One way to shift that equilibrium is to have a large supply of a molecule C that binds to AB, forming a very stable ABC. If the concentration of AB can be pulled very low then the trickle of the A + B => AB reaction is kept alive. This scenario is complicated; chemical intervention is used to prevent equilibrium

Good question, I would also like to know the answer.

Also your videos are amazing

Ah I now realize where I was going wrong with this. Of course it's high information when you know all there is to know and low when you don't so then it makes perfectly sense that low entropy give you high information and high entropy give you low information. :)