What does this logically say about the theory of evolution?

I want to make the osmosis experiment setup at home can you give me an amazon link or somewhere to start?

I think its more along the lines of D but with both information signals emitting simultaneously. The battery pushes volts. The device pulls amps.. so they're both playing a role. The disconnected end is not pulling any amps.

is it possible to use a vacuum process to both move and separate ink from water?

cool intro

I love the explanation that entropy isn't some law governed by some convoluted physical process... It's just the fact that the math in such huge systems of particles demands it. I've always seen where someone will say that in an infinite universe every possible combination will occur an infinite number of times and that thought kinda hurts my brain lol. I like the idea here more that if we're just limiting ourselves to a finite system, like the observable universe, those extremely unlikely combinations will never happen. Great vid as always!

I have really mixed feelings about this video ... and that's a good thing :) Normally I dislike videos that pretend to explain Entropy with pure statistics, because they don't actually explain anything - they just demonstrate the statistics and most of them don't even have real(istic) simulations; many are even extremely biased in the sense that they show a system that is designed to mix particles evenly ... yes I know that if randomly picked a system would be most likely such, but what most such videos do wrong imho is that they completely mislead you to "think" (really make you accept unconditionally) their view. This video however is quite different - it still didn't make the point that I'll make below - but it actually demonstrates honestly and shows the exceptions (even if unlikely) and explains how these exceptions are even possible (usually by spending energy and manipulating the system in a way that we know will decrease Entropy). So this video was not only a product of huge effort, but more importantly was honest, which I really respect! So, to complement it I would like to add my view, which admittedly isn't practical (for practical purposes the statistical approach works fine) and is mostly philosophical. The statistical "explanation" of Entropy works for systems that are inherently random, or are very homogeneous (which indeed on a large scare we admittedly observe). But the thing is we still don't know of a single system that is truly random in its nature, yes not even on quantum level - it's still just an interpretation that justifies exactly the statistical approach - and the fact that we have practical and extremely precise approach to these fields is great and amazing, but it doesn't prove the assumption that Universe is inherently random (maybe it is - we just don't know it yet). In most cases were we can know for sure we know that the system is completely deterministic, but appears random to us, only because of our ignorance - in the purely technical sense - ie only because we don't know all the factors, or we can handle the high complexity or high number of calculations in order to predict the full evolution of the whole system. But interestingly even fully deterministic systems exhibit that apparent random behavior that can be described well by the statistical approach. But there's one little detail that all videos on Entropy actually miss completely, the behavior of the system depends on the actual processes in it, and sometimes these processes can produce a system with lower Entropy - for example low temperature evaporation of water vessel into air can create higher temperature difference. Another example would be the "random" motion of the frame with the marbles - yes it was honestly attempted to be random, but how can you define that for sure? At the extreme opposite you can move the frame in such a way that it kicks the marbles in specific directions so that they separate instead of mix. What we try to do honestly and randomly is most often just a homogeneous action, which should be surprising that it produces homogeneous results. Yes with that extreme example I'm showing a system that manipulates the result, which admittedly is not most systems, and often to design such system we need some intelligent design to achieve it. But I only made this example to illustrate the philosophical point that the result being higher or lower Entropy system depends on the actual deterministic processes in that system, and sometimes completely natural processes can create lower entropy system - for example a Black Hole - the gravity makes the particles come closer together (when the energy of its fusion is insufficient) and when a sufficiently large star collapses that matter concentrates in much smaller area, creating extreme differences in the SpaceTime curvature. That same matter was previously a big star that was still curving the SpaceTime but because it wasn't so concentrated its curvature was more spread out. And if you rewind back enough you can see that the same matter was previously a much more homogenous cloud of dust which as total mass would have the same effects on the SpaceTime fabric, but spread homogeneously over huge area. So to summarize my point is that IF the Universe is completely deterministic even on quantum level (which we don't yet know) then it depends entirely on the processes of the given system to determine if it evolves into higher or lower Entropy. Yes even then many/most/ systems would be homogenous and would behave as we usually observe - ie increasing Entropy. But in that case eventually knowing (and being able to calculate and predict) all the processes in a given system mean that we could manipulate some systems in a way that they produce lower Entropy (for whatever purpose :))

C!

THIS is a good video with very good explanations of wave behavior... kzfaq.info/get/bejne/etWmqNGA3dK9YZ8.htmlsi=mIstZqUBIb0v2ATX

That 3Blue1Brown shoutout 😂 13:08

Thanks, that was super helpful in visualising a thing I had always struggled with.

The way we judge entropy is just a sophisticated form of ocd. We categorize, we define order. 100 or 1000 ball if they are red and green but im color blind so they appear grey to me so there is low enthropy state even if i mixe them. Depending of the viewer and the information the viewer have trough sensor or knowledge then the entropy level will differ based on point of view. For example, if universe entropy is growing then our intuition say entropy should have been low at beggin. When u look the data its show entropy was maxed out already in the beggin. How can max entropy grow if it already at max ? Im no phycisist but my source is another video of a french physisict . Call "le désordre du temps" or translated time disorder. I have no answer just a mindduck

At what vacuum does this happen at before the vacuum just cancels the sound waves?

This is this greatest scientific demonstration video I have ever seen on KZfaq. I am currently re-learning circuits and to have such a beautiful illustration and to realize it matched my intuition is amazing.

I have been learning a bit about electronics lately and when reviewing material about the fundamentals I imaged the electrons working precisely this way, but I felt it was impossible to know. Then you made this and it matched my expectations. The discussion of the water trough is exactly what I was wondering afterwards. Just incredible work. I am really excited to return to learn more.

Screw entropy. Physical/scientific determinism all the way. If there seems to be something we cannot predict or reverse via the laws of physics, it is simply because our knowledge is lacking.

How could so much have been done with electricity while understanding so little about it.

Soooo, you are telling me the second law of thermodynamics is just a corollary for the Central Limit theorem? Neat

I remember we had this question in final exams of physics at the high school if the light bulb on an infinite wire would light up immediately or with a delay, and I said it woudl take some time and I got penalty for my answer

Just a stoner contemplating deep subjects. I viewed the original subject of the video was a reaction of a constant push on the bar and the time to observe movement on the opposite end. And then an experiment to time the force from the blow of a hammer? Is that the same reaction? A constant force vs. impact force???? Experiment may be flawed?

I would have liked to see the consideration where heads or tails are not distinguished, and so 6 tails/4 heads is considered equivalent to 6 heads/4 tails aka set inbalance is considered to be the measure of entropy. In this case, 6/4 is actually more likely than 5/5, and the idea of disorder becomes a little more nuanced (and reflective of the appropriate interpretation IMO)

Was it storming outside while you were doing the shugar water thingy?

13:54 Is hypergolic propellant an example of a system that stores energy with order?

In the first 30 seconds you made me feel not human by saying I should feel human because I didn’t process it like you I am now ashamed and wondering what I truley am. Am I human or a collection of conscious trying to persuade others I am human?

In the realm of statistical mechanics, the Second Law isn't merely a postulate but emerges as a consequence of the fundamental postulate, also referred to as the equal prior probability postulate. However, it's important to note that simple probability reasoning is applicable solely to future events. Conversely, for past events, additional information sources indicate their low entropy state.

om wires as weak capacitors, this also works the other way around, on disconnecting the circuit. some chinese LEDS are made too cheaply yet efficient, with no control or safety circuit == not enough electrical resistance to be turned off reliably, to a point, where 5to20 meter of copper wire in the wall is sometimes a good enough AC-capacitor to keep the LED glowing for a few minutes AFTER switching the circuit off/disconnected.

Bogo sort tries to do this

What if you put a vacuum chamber inside another vacuum chamber? Would the difference in pressure from the inside chamber be lower making it easier to hold a stronger vacuum, or is it all just a stupid idea? Would you be able to get even closer to a "perfect" vacuum?

You can't make cold go into hot, only hot into cold.

I love coming back every few years to realize how much I have learned

Excellent video. I hope this becomes more popular.

"I had to simulate these instead of solving for every possible solution in Excel" - lol. You know it is easy to calculate the number of ways n coins can have k heads: n choose k, which is n! / k!(n-k)!.

Phenomenal video! I didn’t understand what I was doing in labs until now.

You heard it here first, boys: Spring Theory

Thanks!

As a dumb English major and lawyer, thanks for the explanation! I kinda get it.

My engineering teacher said voltage is a force (luckily my physics teacher explained it)

Wins the lottery tomorrow and dies...

Point: Electrons moving through the wire is not where the power is coming from. Electrons don't really move through the wire at any appreciable speed. Most electrons change direction (AC) back and forth and ultimately don't really go anywhere. They do set up an electric field and the power is conveyed by that field, not by actual electrons. There is more too it, but the idea of electrons flowing through wires is just how we describe it as it is easier for people to think of it that way, but that is not really what is happening. As a cool experiment, if you set up a long wire 180,000 miles long and stretched it out 90k miles long in one direction that comes right back another 90k miles...(180k miles or one second travel time for light) and attached a lightbulb at the end, the bulb will still go on virtually instantly, not one second (yes, electrical power moves slower than light, but you get the idea) after the power is is turned on.

So basically If you mix it it will mix

this is fantastic practical work. bravo.

"Messy and disordered" With the ink in water example, once it actually gets the most "disordered", the ink is pretty much evenly spread out and it looks more ordered than when the ink is still mixing in.

But isn't it basically the effect of Lorentz force? After the switch is turned on, the electrons that start moving create a magnetic forcefield that generates an opposite current in the other wire that would cancel out the magnetic force! In this experiment the two sides of the circuit were going in the opposite direction, and this way both sides had a pair that would generate the necessary inducated electric flow in their parallel flow. What you could try, is put all the wires on the same side. So all the 4 wires from the table would go in the very same direction. My prediction is that the magnetic fields would cancel out, and the experienced inducated current would almost completely disappear!

Man you are annoying. Face expressions moving head speaking, all in. Regardless of what you talk about yet your character is not watchable. Did you honest ever watch yourself. Stop making all those facial expressions concentrate on subject don’t try to be funny it’s not for you. Others can do as probably they are funny characters and it suits them. Trust me. You are not one of those. Would make channel more watchable if it looks more professional. Being funny and mixing nuts is not watchable inc facial and body movements during the speaking makes watchers feel deflection of the screen.

What is an object

Funny how I accidentally ran into this video about a question which I thought about when I was in school. Anyhow the video is done so perfect I am really happy I found it!

optic fiber is close and still NO

answer is NO

Brilliant experiment. Quite elegant in fact. Thank you. Keep them coming.

Electrons have mass.