Re: randomness in a system? not for long!

On May 24, 10:08 am, john240509 <vega...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The idea that any part of any system be random
is nonsensical on its face,

No. "Entropy" is a *measure* of randomsness, and must not decrease in
a closed system. Prigogene showed that entropy (randomness) can only
by reduced by pumping energy *into* a system.

and besides, doesn't it
violate some sacred physics priciple, what was it?
No two things can occupy the same space at the same time?

That is the Pauli Exclusion Principle, and applies *only* for objects
governed by Fermi-Dirac statistics (i.e. objects wiyth half-integer
spin).

If you got random movement, it won't be long before two things
are gonna want to occupy the same space at the
same time. And we know what happens then, right?

Right. In physics it is called an "elastic collision".

 (hint: Isreal/Palestine for example)

Irrelevant.

There is no randomness in an atom's
movement, if left alone. There can't be.

In a simple monatomic gas you can specify the positions and velocities
of every particle as precisely as you want, and then try to calculate
trajectories. You might get workable results after one bounce for
each atom, but the uncertainties (Heisenberg's Principle) will doom
you to be forever unable to calculate the impact parameters for the
second round of collisions.

It is self-eliminating.

Sort of like cholera? or your posts? or your presence here?

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Study the mathematics of "chaotic systems."
.