text:
Expedition 2

Expedition 2 (also called ISS EO-2 ) was the second long-duration spaceflight aboard the International Space Station, immediately following Expedition 1. Its three-person crew stayed aboard the station from March to August 2001. In addition to station maintenance, the crew assisted in several station assembly missions, welcomed the first space tourist Dennis Tito, and conducted some scientific experiments.

The crew consisted of one Russian, Commander Yury Usachev, and two American flight engineers Susan Helms and James Voss. The three had been to the station briefly in the previous year, during the 10-day mission STS-101 in May 2000.

The Expedition 2 crew was brought to the station aboard Space Shuttle Discovery during mission STS-102. The Expedition's increment began when Discovery docked on 10 March 2001, bringing Expedition 1 to an end. In addition to the Space Shuttle flights which brought the crew to and from the station, there were two visiting Space Shuttle missions and one Soyuz mission which docked with the ISS during Expedition Two. In August Discovery returned to rotate the long-duration crews again, bringing the crew of the next expedition. The Expedition 2 increment ended when Discovery undocked from the station on 20 August 2001.

Crew
All three crew members had visited the International Space Station together in May 2000 aboard STS-101. In addition to this spaceflight, the Expedition 2 Commander Yuri Usachev also had two other spaceflights, both of which were long-duration missions aboard Mir (EO-15 and EO-21).

In addition to STS-101, flight engineer Susan Helms had three other spaceflights, all of which were Space Shuttle missions (STS-54, STS-64, STS-78). James Voss also had three other spaceflights, all of which were Space Shuttle missions (STS-44, STS-53, STS-69).

Mission highlights
Expedition 2, the second long-term crew for the International Space Station arrived in March 2001. They returned to Earth on mission STS-105, 22 August 2001 after having spent 163 days aboard the station and 167 days in space. Only Voss performed a spacewalk on STS-101, along with Jeffrey Williams.

During this expedition, research facilities launched to the Space Station included a Human Research Facility, two EXPRESS (Expedite the Processing of Experiments to the Space Station) Racks, one of which contains the Active Rack Isolation System and the Payload Equipment Restraint System. They also prepared the Destiny laboratory to enable upcoming experiments to be conducted.

A major focus was on gaining a better understanding of how to protect crew members from radiation while working and living in space. Radiation exposure in high doses over long periods of time can damage human cells and cause cancer or injury to the central nervous system.

Launch and docking
The three-member Expedition 2 crew successfully launched on 8 March 2001 on Space Shuttle Discovery during mission STS-102. They docked with the International Space Station on 10 March, but the Expedition 2 increment didn't begin until the previous crew undocked from the station on 18 March.

STS-100
The first visitors to the station during Expedition 2 was the crew of STS-100, when they docked Space Shuttle Endeavour with the ISS on 21 April 2001. They spent eight days docked to the station. The primary objective of this mission was to deliver and install the Canadarm2 on the ISS, which is a robotic arm similar to the Canadarm which is used on some Space Shuttle flights. A later mission in 2002, STS-111, would deliver a movable base platform which would allow the Canadarm2 to have a larger range.

ISS EP-1
On the day after the Space Shuttle undocked, the Russian spacecraft Soyuz TM-32 docked to the station, carrying two cosmonauts with previous spaceflight experience, as well as Dennis Tito, the first ever space tourist. This 8 day mission is sometimes referred to as ISS EP-1, ISS-2S, Soyuz 2 Taxi Flight, or simply by its launching spacecraft Soyuz TM-32. The Commander of this visiting mission was Kazakh cosmonaut Talgat Musabayev, who had previously been on two long-duration missions aboard the space station Mir in the 1990s. The other crew member of ISS EP-1 was Yuri Baturin, who had one other spaceflight, Mir EP-4, which was a visiting mission to Mir launched with the spacecraft Soyuz TM-28. Baturin's first mission occurred during the long-duration mission Mir EO-25, so he and Musabayev had already been in space together prior to ISS EP-1; in fact both were landed with the spacecraft Soyuz TM-27 in August 1998.

STS-104
In July, Space Shuttle Atlantis docked with the station for an eight-day visit as a part of STS-104. The main objective of this mission was to install the Quest Joint Airlock onto the station.

The STS-104 crew performed 3 spacewalks.

 * First spacewalk; Joint Airlock Installation

The first spacewalk occurred on 15 July, and focused on installation of the Quest Joint Airlock. The spacewalkers helped as Susan Helms, using the station's robotic arm, lifted the new station airlock from Atlantis' payload bay and moved it to the station's Unity module. During much of the 5 hour, 59 minute spacewalk, Jim Reilly worked from a foot platform attached to the end of the shuttle's robotic arm, operated by Janet Kavandi. After the spacewalk, crew members inside the Station attached connections to the airlock to prevent thermal damage.

 * Second spacewalk

The second spacewalk which happened on 18 July, lasted 6 hours, 29 minutes. The internal hatches between the shuttle and station were closed at the end of Flight Day 6 so Atlantis' cabin pressure could be lowered in preparation for the second spacewalk. The major objective was to attach and connect an oxygen and a nitrogen tank. Susan Helms operated the station arm to lift the tanks from the shuttle's payload bay and maneuver them to the new airlock. At the airlock, Mike Gernhardt and Jim Reilly latched the tanks in place and connected cables and hoses. The spacewalkers were able to get ahead of schedule and also install another oxygen tank, leaving only one tank to be connected on the third spacewalk.

 * Third spacewalk

The third spacewalk, which occurred on 21 July, was the first spacewalk based out of the new Quest Joint Airlock, and lasted 4 hours, 2 minutes. Primary objective was to install the final nitrogen tank outside the airlock. This spacewalk tested a new protocol developed by former commercial diver Mike Gernhardt: essentially exercising while breathing oxygen to purge nitrogen from the spacewalkers' bodies.

Undocking and landing
In August, Space Shuttle Discovery returned to the station during the mission STS-105, which carried the three Expedition 2 crew members back down to Earth. They undocked from the station on 20 August 2001, marking the end of the Expedition 2 increment.

Mission patch
The International Space Station Expedition Two patch depicts the Space Station as it appeared during the time the second crew was on board. The Station flying over the Earth represents the overall reason for having a space station: to benefit the world through scientific research and international cooperation in space. The number 2 is for the second expedition and is enclosed in the Cyrillic MKS and Latin ISS which are the respective Russian and English abbreviations for the International Space Station. The United States and Russian flags show the nationalities of the crew indicating the joint nature of the program. When asked about the stars in the background, a crew spokesperson said they "...represent the thousands of space workers throughout the ISS partnership who have contributed to the successful construction of our International Space Station."

Science activities
Two science racks, known as EXPRESS Racks No. 1 and 2, were delivered to the station in April aboard STS-100. One of the experiments on EXPRESS Rack No. 2 was the Experiment of Physics of Colloids in Space. Several different colloid mixtures were studied, and the analysis is still underway.

title: Expedition 2


text:
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 29, 2004

Radar is an acronym for radio detection and ranging. It is a system used to detect, range (determine the distance of), and map objects such as aircraft and rain. Strong radio waves are transmitted, and a receiver listens for any echoes. By analysing the reflected signal, the reflector can be located, and sometimes identified. Although the amount of signal returned is tiny, radio signals can easily be detected and amplified. (more...)

Recently featured: Mitochondrial Eve – Copyright – Siege

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 28, 2004

A comparison of the mitochondrial DNA of humans from many races and regions suggests that all of these DNA sequences have evolved molecularly from a common ancestor sequence. Under the assumption that an individual inherits mitochondria only from his or her mother, this finding implies that all living humans have a female line of descent from a woman who researchers have dubbed Mitochondrial Eve. Based on the molecular clock technique, Eve is believed to have lived about 150,000 years ago. At the time of Eve's existence, there may have been up to 20,000 individuals. Phylogenies suggest she lived in Africa. (more...)

Recently featured: Copyright – Siege – Lollapalooza


text:
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 27, 2004

A copyright provides its holder the right to restrict unauthorized copying and reproduction of an original expression (i.e. literary work, movie, music, painting, software, mask work, etc.) Copyright, unlike patents, does not grant a monopoly right to the use of an invention or an idea, but merely the right to prevent others from copying your specific implementation or expression. Copyright should also not be confused with the form of intellectual property law called trademarks. Copyright also does not prohibit all forms of copying.

In the United States, the fair use clause of the Copyright Act allows copying and distribution under certain limited circumstances. Copyright law is controversial, with some seeing it as essential to prevent abuse, while others find it too restrictive. This has led to the concept of copyleft and alternative licences. (more...)

Recently featured: Siege – Lollapalooza – Galileo Galilei


text:
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 26, 2004

A siege is a prolonged military assault on and blockade of a city or fortress with the intent of conquering by force or attrition. A siege occurs when an attacker encounters a city or fortress that refuses to surrender and cannot be easily taken by a frontal assault. Sieges usually involve surrounding the target and blocking the provision of supplies, typically coupled with artillery bombardment, sapping and mining to reduce fortifications. Sieges are as old as warfare itself, with towns in the Middle East from the dawn of civilization having defensive walls. However, with the advent of mobile warfare, one single fortified stronghold is no longer as decisive as it once was. (more...)

Recently featured: Lollapalooza – Galileo Galilei – 1993 Russian constitutional crisis


text:
User talk:Floorsheim

Thanks. These holomovement articles are very discouraging. Also have a look at the history of Many-worlds interpretation. The article is OK now, although I had to negotiate by leaving a link to holomovement.CSTAR 02:30, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

New holomovement redirect
Yes, this new article is an enormous improvement. The previous holomovement article was worthless (IMHO).CSTAR 15:18, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * What happened to the redirect?CSTAR 04:15, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: Rfc / Neutrality
Just an FYI for you, from Rex071404 16:47, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC):

Neutrality was admonished recently for moving evidence that was not his from an Arbitration page to a discussion (talk page). He did this twice! And when reported to Arbitrator Fred Bauder by me (the victim of his actions), Neutrality was admonsihed by thusly:

"User:Rex071404 is permitted in his section of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence to make whatever he feels is an appropriate statement or presentation of evidence. He is a full participant in the arbitration. (A status you have granted him by filing a complaint against him.). He is entitled to present his views, provided they are in a clearly marked separate section, in whatever form he choses. Moving his statements to the talk page is highly inappropriate. Fred Bauder 12:14, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)"

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Neutrality"

--

Your vote needed at George_W._Bush
Please go here, ASAP and vote.

Rex071404 07:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

New Bush vote now under way - please vote
Here

Rex071404 15:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Holomovement
I my limited exposure to "redirects", I have seen potential for misuse. However, I am not in any way suggesting that here.

Even so, since Holomovement issue is complex, please tell me in brief your (3) best reasons why I should support your desired redirect.

I will give the matter my full attention as soon as you provide the three reasons.

Rex071404 16:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Holomovement
Hi. I'm not really the best person to help on something like this. All I can suggest is that you move the inappropriate parts of the article to the talk page and ask for sources to be given before it is replaced. This will ensure the content is real, and not one person's POV. Have a look at Talk:Time Cube and Talk:Reciprocal System of Theory for similar problems with people defending their own POV on their pet theories. Perhaps you could leave a note on those talk pages suggesting that the people involved there look at the Holomovement issue. Don't let it stress you too much, and try not to resort to calling people crazy, even if they are. Angela. 16:41, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Holomovement
Why don't you do the redirect, but also perhaps, have concise sub-section summarizing the "Holomovement" concept, so as to pacify the guardians of the current page?

Rex071404 22:58, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Due to limited formal education on these concepts, I am not sure why it's important that a "Holomovement" page as currently comprised, is bad for the general welfare of the readers.

Rex071404 00:37, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Non-separable Hilbert space
Let X be uncountable. The space

 * $$ \ell^2(X) $$

of complex-valued sequences φ such that

 * $$ \sum_{x \in X} |\phi(x)|^2 < \infty $$

is non-separable. Most Hilbert spaces that arise in analysis and geometry are separable, but non-separable ones are sometimes unavoidable.CSTAR 23:58, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * As I mentioned previously, most spaces which occur in Analysis are separable. However, in some sense, non-separable ones are unnavoidable. For insatnce, the the algebra of all operators on a separable infinite dimensional space has naturally occurring irreducible representations on non-separable spaces.CSTAR 21:03, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Axiom of choice
How do show the family

 * $$ M_\alpha :U \rightarrow S_\alpha $$

exists which satisfies your conditions? It boils down to the same question.CSTAR 22:29, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Controversy
If you think about the problem procedurally, then how do you write a procedure that actually "picks" an element from a set? Note that most mathematicians don't worry about this problem (or even regard it as a problem). But this is something that you cannot ignore if you try to think carefully about the nature of mathematics. What does it mean to say that a solution to a problem exists? In what way does it exist -- or naively where does it exist? If you think of it the problem procedurally, you have a systematic way of providing an answer. Otherwise, you may end up mired in other more idealist (in the sense of philosophical idealism) answers. These aren't necessarilly bad, but they're harder and you thus provide material demand for a not very socially useful academic industry. I myself use the Axiom of Choice shamelessly. CSTAR 17:35, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Proof using or not using the Riemann hypothesis

 * "Even after Riemann's conjecture is proved, the fact that some theorem has a proof not using it is important" I disagree.  If the Riemann hypothesis is true, assuming its negation is a contradiction; and anything follows from a contradiction.  Also, if Riemann's conjecture is true, assuming it to be true is a tautology; and anything that follows from a tautology is, itself, a tautology.  It would definitely be interesting, though, to see a proof of the theorem you referenced that didn't go along the lines of A٨¬A → {A, ¬A} → {A٧B, ¬A} → B, but it wouldn't establish anything unknown.  –Floorsheim 21:37, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"A proof not using the Riemann hypothesis" is not at all the same thing as "a proof using the negation of the Riemann hypothesis." Suppose A has a short simple proof using the Riemann hypothesis, and a short simple proof not using the Riemann hypothesis. If the Riemann hypothesis is hard to prove (as appears to be the case), then wouldn't the short simple proof of A not using the Riemann hypothesis make the proof of A accessible to those who haven't worked through the proof of the Riemann hypothesis? And might it not be important for that reason? Michael Hardy 17:17, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Regular representation
A similar fact that is true for compact groups, BTW. Every compact group can be separated by finiote dimensional ones. Incidentally the left regular representation contains each irreducible representation of dimension n, n times.CSTAR 15:28, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Implicate and explicate order
I have been working on a substantially new version of the article, incorporating the great examples but attempting to elucidate the core features of Bohm's views. Any objections? Let me know Stephenhumphry 05:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Kissing Swans
Hi Brookie here - thanks for the note re the swans - good picture isn't it! I took this about 10 years ago and this was scanned in using a high resolution scanner. I can email you the larger photo as scanned if that will help. Kind regards :) The curate's egg 12:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

User Pennsylvania
I was clearing out Wikipedians/Pennsylvania. I added this template to your page. Feel free to remove it, and thanks for understanding. --evrik 04:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Pennsylvania
Hello there!

I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:
 * Contact us on IRC at #wikimedia-pa
 * Join our mailing list
 * Visit our blog at http://wmfpa.blogspot.com

Thanks and I hope you join up!  Cbrown1023   talk   03:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

request for comment on Hugh Hefner
Please take the time to go to Hugh Hefner's talkpage and respond to the request for comment on what jerrygraf is trying to add that does not belong on Hugh Hefner's page, but belongs on PEI's, as well as the part I deleted is ment as a "controversial comment on the biography of a living person"Rogue Gremlin 04:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama
You have previously shown an interest in the Barack Obama article. Please state on the Talk page of the Barack Obama article whether you Support or Oppose Scjessey's version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama#Let.27s_see_whether_you_really_have_a_.22new_consensus.22_.28version_2.29

Thank you. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Your comments were very well put at Talk:Barack Obama. I think someone should post to various boards to get more comment from other editors, since the current small group is not producing a consensus after long discussion (too long on my part, I know). I'm not sure how to word the request though. Any suggestions? I was going to ask for more comment from editors just about my suggestion for a change in the wording of the Ayers sentence, but you've brought up wider concerns. If there's a specific concrete proposal that editors can focus on, wider than my proposed edit, then it would be worthwhile to make it on the talk page and ask for additional comment specifically on that. I don't think it would work to bother other editors without something concrete that they can help decide (although that can be done). Please tell me what you think. The possible noticeboards where the request for comment could be posted include Requests for comment/Biographies, Requests for comment/Politics and Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Thoughts? Noroton (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Could you please post a version of your proposed language at the Talk/Barack Obama page as soon as possible? Some edit warring has started, and a complaint has been filed at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. As you know, admins at AN/I will only involve themselves as admins in behavioral problems (although some new editors may come to the page to edit). I'd like to post requests for comment at the various boards I mentioned and get some new editors in ASAP. Please advise. Cheers, Noroton (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Floorsheim: where 'dja go! :^) — Justmeherenow  10:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * n/p! — Justmeherenow  12:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama
Oops, sorry I had an edit conflict on the above changes, was trying to revert changes from an edit prior to yours but unfortunately reverted yours too. My apologies. --Nuttycoconut (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Delay on Barack Obama proposal
Because I waited for you so long, Scjessey has jumped the gun (here) by offering a proposal on treating the Ayers situation with a supposedly "balanced" list of options that makes his POV seem more reasonable. I wanted to wait for you because you had written quite a lot on the subject and came out with good proposed language for all the controversies. Of course I don't blame you for having a life with other responsibilities, but waiting is really messing this up now. If you can't put something together and get it on the page very early this evening (five hours from now), I'll do it myself and hope for your support. Noroton (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. It was actually my bad to have waited so long. I should've got going earlier and realized it wouldn't be a problem. Best of luck with the move. I always find I need more boxes than I originally estimated when I move, and I always find Ziplock bags useful. And it always takes longer than I think it will take. Good luck. Noroton (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for your comment

 * You're the 26th person I've sent this to, and likely the last. I sent it to everyone who voted in the last tally, and either you didn't or I missed you. Still plenty of time. If I knew how to make this red, white and blue, I would have. Noroton (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barack Obama
I would like to encourage you to continue to participate at Talk:Barack Obama and related articles. I am taking a 30-day voluntary Wikibreak from the topic. You seem to be one of the more restrained and compromise-minded people who have contributed recently to the discussion. Please review my comments on User talk:Bigtimepeace. BTP is an admin who has volunteered to monitor the progress of the article, which is one of the reasons why I feel confident that I can take 30 days off, without it turning into an Obama campaign brochure. Discussion there now appears to be constructive. Cheers Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

ANI report
You have been mentioned in a WP:ANI report here. You may wish to participate in the discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Truthcon
Blocked for a week. -- Neil N   talk to me  13:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just saw that. Thanks for your help. ==Floorsheim (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Floorsheim


text:
Crato, Ceará

Crato is a city of 130,000 inhabitants on the banks of the river Granjeiro in the south of the state of Ceará, in the northeast of Brazil. It was founded on June 21, 1764 by the Capuchin friar Carlos Maria de Ferrara. Originally it was a small village in which the population were principally native Kariris, it gained official status as a city on October 17, 1817.

The Brazilian city of Crato was named in honor to Crato, a Portuguese town which was founded in the 13th century.

The people of Crato credit their city's blossoming to a priest, Padre Cicero, who was outcast from the nearby town of Juazeiro do Norte in the late 1800s and settled in Crato with his various followers thereafter. Various images and statues of the priest can be found around Crato as a sign of appreciation for the priest.

Crato is about 550 km from Fortaleza, the capital of the state of Ceará. Its county has a surface area of approximately 1,117 km2. It is at an altitude of 426m, -7.23417°N, -39.40944°W. Its population of 110,000 makes it the sixth-largest city in Ceará. The economy is a mix of trading and agriculture;, a small industrial park is expanding. The region is rich in minerals, especially gypsum and marble.

Crato has its Roman Catholic Diocese which has contributed to the educational system of the region with schools in the past. For the most recent data (2007) the city has 5.3 in the classification of the development index of basic education (for primary education, IDEB ) - this index ranges from 0 to 10. The national average is 3.8 and that of the state of Ceará is 6.1 (the fourth place in the country).

In higher education, in addition to hosting campuses at the Federal University of Cariri (UFCA ) and the Federal Institute of Technological Education (IFCE ), the city is home to the state institution Universidade Regional do Cariri (URCA ), which has around 10,000 students. Several private higher education institutions are active in the city.

The city is surrounded by a tropical wood in the Araripe basin (Serra do Araripe) near the border of the state of Pernambuco. the climate is generally mild, with somewhat more rain than is typical of the region.

Crato is connected to the nearby city of Juazeiro do Norte by a commuter rail line called the Cariri Metro that opened in 2009–2010.

title: Crato, Ceará


text:
User:Floorsheim

Hi. I'm currently a physics Ph.D. student, but I fancy myself more of a thinker in general. The most important problems, I think, are those pertaining to the existence of God and an afterlife. Unfortunately, these are also among the most difficult to sort out. But Wikipedia definitely helps!

That was written in 2004. Now it's 2007, and I fancy myself more of a non-thinker in general. Still working on the same issues. But thinking has gotten me as close to them as it's going to. Now I am looking.

````

title: User:Floorsheim


text:
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 25, 2004

Lollapalooza was an American traveling music festival featuring alternative rock, rap, and punk rock bands, dance and comedy performances, and craft booths. Organized in 1991 by Perry Farrell, singer for the band Jane's Addiction, Lollapalooza ran annually through 1997, and was revived in 2003. The festival encapsulated youth culture for the 1990s much as Woodstock did for the 1960s; Lollapalooza Generation is often used as a synonym for Generation X. (more...)

Recently featured: Galileo Galilei – Russian constitutional crisis of 1993 – Rudyard Kipling


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Eifler

 * Appears to be utter nonsense; nothing in Google, and the 'Nobody recognises him as the inventor, but ...' stuff is rather suspicious indeed. Delete.—Morven 06:51, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is really a eulogy to the indicator! - even if this article is factually correct, brief biographical details are all that's required to be encyclopedic and we don't even get those.Cutler 10:39, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * I hope you have read Talk:Henry Eifler. I also think this page is somewhat suspicious, but Google is not God: I've come across quite a number of subjects where you find "nothing in Google" but which are not "utter nonsense".  10:46, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Google is not the source of all knowledge, but I've got two problems. First, Google does link us to Oscar Simler as the invetor of the turn signal, and Henry Eifler triggers only Wikipedia mirrors.  If it can be validated, it can stay.  As it stands, we are misinforming. Geogre 13:34, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * While Google lacks deity status, the fact is that automobile topics are fairly well represented online. So one would expect to find SOMETHING on the guy.  I was surprised, in fact, not to find some large, obsessive website about his great contributions to mankind, since that's pretty common from the supporters of someone's claim to be the true inventor of (compare Erwin Komenda and his granddaughter Iris Steinenk's campaign to have him recognised as the true designer of the VW Beetle).  If nothing else, the fact that this story has, it seems, been published nowhere but here bars it from being here; Wikipedia Is Not a place for original research and theories.  I'd encourage Tim Glover, his great-grandson, who seemingly placed this article here, to document this much more fully elsewhere (whether in print or online).  THEN we might have justification for encyclopedia articles on the guy.  A web site with photos of the invention, etc. would have me much happier that there is at least a case to be made here. We certainly don't need proof that he DID invent the turn signal first, but we do need proof that this is more than some hoary old family legend and that there is a real claim here.  —Morven 18:49, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep if this can be verified outside his grandson's family tradition. If true, it's another of those interesting "also invented by" stories, as with the telephone, light bulb, and radar. We would need some other source, though. Then comes the POV cleanup. --Gary D 20:55, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I asked the original poster to give us some evidence of the veracity of this article, but he/she hasn't posted anything since April and didn't reply to my request. Delete.  RickK 18:34, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Has a smell of bogisity about it. Following reverted "contributions" of the author around the same time: and  do not speak for his (?) credibility. Delete. --Ianb 23:44, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 24, 2004

Galileo Galilei was a Tuscan astronomer, philosopher, and physicist who is closely associated with the scientific revolution. He has been referred to as the "father of modern astronomy," as the "father of modern physics," and as "father of science." His experimental work is widely considered complementary to the writings of Bacon in establishing the modern scientific method. Galileo was born in Pisa and his career coincided with that of Kepler. The work of Galileo is considered to be a significant break from that of Aristotle; in particular, Galileo placed emphasis on quantity, rather than quality. (more...)

Recently featured: Russian constitutional crisis of 1993 – Rudyard Kipling – Auto rickshaw


text:
Talk:Cockslap

From VfD:

"A cockslap or cockslapping is the act of slapping another person with one's own penis or a dildo." Neologism-y dicdef. And, really, isn't the meaning evident from the word? Tregoweth 06:52, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC) end moved discussion
 * del Salasks 08:25, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Cutler 10:32, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, (i wrote it ). First i would like to say that your reason for listing it here is invalid, listing something at VFD simply because it states nothing more than the painfully obvious AND is labelled as a stub means it needs expantion, not deletion. Anyway it's about a valid article about a sub-cultural *ahem* phenomena. -- Ævar Arnfjör› [ Bjarmason]   10:37, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)
 * We tend to have very good sexology topics; but how can this be expanded? History of cockslapping?  cockslapping in Iceland? User:Ævar Arnfjör› Bjarmason should clean this up if he wants to keep it; as it is now, my vote is to  delete; it encourages kidi-wiki neologia Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:16, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * If there is more to say on this phenomenon, then say it. If nothing more has been said by the end of the deletion period, delete. DJ Clayworth 19:27, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Question: "Kidi-wiki"? Tregoweth 17:37, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Contributions from younger users which despite the best of intentions, are a bit of a mess. Favourite topics include Pokemon and Harry Potter.  The sinister side however is vandalism, usually homophobic attacks on schoolfriends, but which extends to slang dicdefs of sexual practices they'd like to do, but are too young and/or have no-one to do them with. Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:33, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I would say keep, if there was any evidence of notability in the article. But I don't think there is, and more to the point, I don't believe there could be. Is cockslapping really significant enough for an encyclopedia article? I don't think it is. Prove me wrong, or delete. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:38, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)
 * Delete: I am pretty hardcore about breakouts of articles on individual sexual practices. To me, subtopics are unlikely to be searched, tie up names, and, yes, encourage kidi-wiki, and also increase the odds of getting blacklisted by filters, etc.  The information is fine, but I feel it should be covered in an up-tree lemma. My argument is about granularity, not content, though, and whether we get blacklisted or not is the least of my concerns.  Geogre 13:40, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: slang dicdef (ahem). Sorry, couldn't resist! Wile E. Heresiarch 14:36, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although I'm sure it'd be a welcome contribution at UrbanDictionary.com Darksun 17:51, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dickdef... sorry, should read dicdef. Andrewa 01:37, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Send to Wiktionary unless expanded beyond a dictionary definition. —No-One Jones 01:50, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless the author or someone can show that the word is in use to any significant degree. Google only shows 108 hits for this word on the Web, and only 19 in Google Groups. It is almost impossible to imagine that a word about a sexual practice could get so few hits. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 03:09, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) Redirect to Sexual slang as suggested below by others. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 09:53, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. One imagines that if the article were, ahem, expanded it would no longer be a simple "slap" per se... Fire Star 03:53, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Sexual slang. (I already merged the content.) As others have pointed out, the cockslap article will never grow to be anything more than a, er, stub. Don't delete, because I guarantee that it'll eventually get reincarnated and end up on VfD again. The way to stomp out kidi-wiki is not to delete, but to redirect to existing, in-depth, and [semi-]serious articles. --Benc 20:23, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Sexual slang. -- Stevietheman 06:10, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * As Benc says, redirect only to keep it from reoccuring. Rossami 13:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Sexual slang.ScottyBoy900Q 20:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Sexual slang. It's not as if there's going to be a vital need for some other article by that name, and the redirect is slightly more useful than nothing even for the most trivial topics. Ian Maxwell 04:35, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Turkey Slap. They're the same thing, right? Couldn't the articles be combined?

title: Talk:Cockslap


text:
Talk:Loschmidt's paradox

Misc
The decrease in entropy that's local to the glass accompanies an equal or (probably) larger increase in entropy associated with the energy source for melting. The article doesn't demonstrate reversability, and it seems to confirm rather than resolve the paradox. -munge 5 August 2004

 * Thought experiments regarding thermodynamics unfortunately suffer from a lack of verifiability. It's as much of a mistake to present a broken glass and say entropy has increased as it is to present a reformed glass and say entropy has decreased.  All we can be certain of is the state of the glass.  Perfect reversability also requires some exotic devices:
 * a closed system
 * a perfect collector of heat
 * a perfect initial state for the system, which requires:
 * omniscience regarding the eternal future behavior of the system

 * Any one of these is hard enough to construct by itself, and our experiment needs all of them simultaneously and instantaneously!* Two more devices are also needed if others are to verify that the system works; namely, a means of looking inside a closed system without altering its state, and immortality.

 * So we can't possibly demonstrate anything about entropy.

 * The universe, however, is a closed system at some scale. Its continuing expansion ensures that.  Galaxies that have vanished past the boundary set by Hubble's constant will never affect us, nor us them.  In other words, we're hopelessly trapped.  We can at least find some consolation in that everything else is trapped as well.

 * Unfortunately, energy will constantly leak out of our bubble (due to it being a fixed size) until nothing is left inside. There might be a lot of very cold iron for a while, but it must surely collapse under gravity.  Our system isn't quite closed enough.

 * Our system isn't quite large enough, either, though. What identity does space have when all its energy has leaked away?  It may as well simply not exist anymore -- and so it doesn't.  Nor do the laws of physics apply anymore, as nothing remains that they could meaningfully act upon.  Our aleph-null universe is like a flashlight gone dead, waiting for somebody in aleph-one to replace the batteries, saying, "Let there be light."  --Eequor 10:14, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * note that, if one is clever, one can stop as soon as the closed system has been constructed, and simply lie about the other three -- nobody can look inside anyway. This approach also avoids cosmological dilemmas.

It seems to me that perfect knowledge at any instant at all would violate Heisenberg's principle. If we could violate quantum and have omniscience, then we might be able to detect a violation in the second law. Suppose we did. Then thermo would not apply in at least some thought-universes where quantum doesn't apply. But both seem to apply in the universe of experimental physics.

The thought experiments that claim to resolve Loschmidt's paradox are the ones that appear to suffer from lack of verifiability. Macro-scale experiments that are consistent with thermo are abundant. Macro-scale violations of thermo, if possible, are the experiments that await verification. Perhaps the paradox simply stands, and the article should say so.

Speculating now: What is the harm after all in adding an arrow of time to the principles of physics? Assuming that accepting a paradox is unscientific, is resistance to adding an arrow of time a scientific attitude? If the question seems anthrocentric, is there really anything whatever about physics that is not? Just asking. -munge 7 August 2004

 * There are actually experiments which apparently violate the second law. See fluctuation theorem.  --Eequor 18:49, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The next-to-last paragraph of that article says otherwise, that FT implies 2nd law. If true (I am not convinced that article is right either), you are onto something bigger. What assumptions underlie FT? FT is a theorem of some subset of math, Maxwell, Newton, and QM? If so, the 2nd law is true if those are true, and therefore Loshmidt's is not a paradox.

Just like statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics likewise allows all sorts of weird things to happen on rare occasion. By that yardstick, thermo is thus not any less true than gravity, which is then "less a law than a guideline". IMO, physical principles called laws are actually recipes that reliably produce repeatable results and rarely, nonrepeatable anomalous ones. -munge 9 August 2004

 * Yeah. By the fluctuation theorem, entropy in the part of the universe we can observe tends to behave according to the second law.  The second law breaks down entirely at small enough scales.  The statistical nature of the fluctuation theorem leads to some interesting questions.  What is the cumulative effect of all these probabilities?  If large-scale changes are not forbidden, but may occur very rarely, what effects might they have on the universe?  What is the behavior of a dimensionless point?  Could this drive inflation?

 * Also note that the theorem states the average change in entropy over arbitrarily long times is zero. --Eequor 07:05, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I think I'll mark that article for .  I'm realizing it's somewhat vague.  --Eequor 07:05, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I do not agree with the article. The skeptic can use whatever real or conceptual family of technology that the glass shop uses. One would need conceptual perfect heat exchangers and perfect insulators, for both fusing and measuring. As to the small scale, if there are exotic exceptions to the 2nd law, I find them counterbalanced by the exotic exceptions to time symmetry at that scale, such as the decay of the neutral kaon. As to the large scale. I find it remarkable if QM plus gravity plus electromagnetics cannot indeed predict friction, which in practice can be overcome only by the imagination. If they cannot do so, what other large-scale phenomena might they be inadequate to predict, phenomena that might well have a bearing on cosmology?

If macro-scale systems return to prior states over time, like the mystical doctrine of cycles, then once again, Eequor, you and I will reason over this, once again we will quibble. In some permutations of the future, it will be you instead of I who assert that all experimental evidence indicates the 2nd law is strongly true. In others, we both refute it and together craft a nanoprobe that harvests the zero point energy. The cycles where the relationship works out, those where it ends up in lawsuits, those in which I cheat you and those in which I lose everything...

If (like many-worlds) this is the position one must take after all to logically avoid a paradox, then I'm probably going with the paradox. -munge

It wouldn't matter if the theoretical glass shop even could reassemble the glass perfectly, atom for atom. The overall entropy of the entire system would still increase. All that is happening is that the entropy in the glass is being "exported" so to speak by the burning of fossil fuels (or whatever is being done to generate the power necissary to heat/reassemble/etc the glass.) --||bass 23:06, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Out of disorder
I'm removing the following entire section from the text:

 * A simpler resolution of the paradox can be found if the second law of thermodynamics is not seen as absolute; rather, less a law than a guideline. If the law is revised to state that entropy tends to increase over time, a different universe emerges, in which entropy may increase in both directions of time.

 * The usual example is a glass or other easily breakable object. Consider a point in time where the glass is intact, perhaps in falling to the ground.  This is an ordered state for the glass; it may easily remain in this state indefinitely, but once broken it cannot be put back together.  Upon reaching the ground, the glass shatters: this is its disordered state.

 * Consider the numerous ways in which the glass may break. It may simply chip, it may break into a few pieces, it may shatter into innumerable tiny fragments.  Clearly, the glass has many disordered states, compared to its one ordered state.  Over time, it is inevitable that the glass will fall into one of these states, as its ordered state is only one out of many possibilities.  It can be seen that ordered states tend to become disordered.

 * Generally, this is where speculation on the nature of thermodynamics ends, as it has been demonstrated that entropy will increase. There is another possible conclusion, however.

 * Brought to a proper temperature, silica or glass will melt and can be shaped. Logically, this is the origin of our unfortunate glass.  Consider the shattered glass: its fragments may be collected and melted, causing its molecules to become increasingly disordered from heat.  The molten glass may then be formed into a new glass, identical (or nearly so) to the original glass.  As the glass cools, its molecules become more ordered.

 * The falling glass is once again in an ordered state. Viewing time backwards, the glass warms until it melts and loses its shape entirely.  As with its shattering, there are many ways in which the glass may melt.  Once again it is inevitable that the glass will transition to one of these states: there are more of them.

 * Loschmidt's paradox vanishes. Regardless of the direction of time, ordered states tend to become disordered.  It may be said that even as order becomes disorder, order arises out of disorder.

It's criticised above, because the given example involves the introduction of extra energy to re-form the glass. However, the main reason for my removing it is that it appears to be an original theory, or an original attempt to resolve the given paradox, not pre-existing knowledge. I might be wrong, it may be a quite well known example, in which case a citation would be useful. For the time being, though, I am removing it. Crosbiesmith 21:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I recall a similar argument, without the example, in A Brief History of Time. The example is ill-chosen; glass is a chaotic solid. Septentrionalis 16:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

fluctuation theorem
I disagree with the statement that the fluctuation theorem resolves the paradox. The fluctuation theorem assumes a system that's initially not in equilibrium. In a system that is mostly in equilibrium over a long stretch of time, fluctuations occur, and the fluctuation theorem simply describes the probability that such a fluctuation will be a certain size, and span a certain amount of time. If we observe the system to be undergoing an unusually big fluctuation at a particular time, then the fluctuation theorem tells us that the fluctuation will be unlikely to persist for a long time into the future, but it also tells us that the fluctuation is unlikely to have persisted since a long time in the past. The resolution of Loschmidt's paradox is simply that (for reasons unknown to us) our universe has an endpoint to its time coordinate (the Big Bang) that is a state of low entropy. In a universe that had a maximum-entropy Big Bang, there would be no arrow of time, and the second law of thermodynamics would be meaningless.--Bcrowell 02:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Loschmidt's own idea was similar, he thought the explanation of the rise of entropy lay somehow in the initial conditions of the Universe, rather than in the H-theorem98.109.241.146 (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Failed GA nomination
As it stands, one reference is not nearly enough for an article of this complexity. The article is barely comprehensible to a layman such as I (In the first sentence alone, "time-symmetric dynamics and a time-symmetric formalism" is almost meaningless). It might be better to describe the paradox as a conflict between two laws, describe the laws in relation to the paradox, and then state what the paradox itself is. Nifboy 07:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I don't quite understand what "time-symmetric formalism" is supposed to mean. The equations describing the laws of physics are certainly time-symmetric, but I would usually understand "formalism" to mean something like "algebraic equations" or "tensor equations", i.e. a particular convention for expressing the laws of physics mathematically. Time-symmetry is a property of the laws of physics themselves, not of the choice of mathematical notation you use to write them down - it would be perfectly possible to write down the equations for time-asymmetric laws using the same formalism as is used to write down the actual laws, for example. For another example of this use of "formalism", see this paper on expressing the Einstein-Maxwell equation "in the Newman-Penrose formalism" - I'm pretty sure they're talking about expressing the same laws of physics that are expressed by the Einstein-Maxwell equation, but with a different type of mathematical notation (the 'spinor formalism of Newman and Penrose'). Google the words "equations particular formalism" (as individual words, not a phrase) and you'll find a number of other examples of "formalism" used in this way. So can anyone justify this phrase? Hypnosifl 17:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeah, re-reading the opening, it is probably better without "time-symmetric formalism". So I've come round to be in support of your edit.

 * The "formalism" is the mathematical machinery you use to represent the system, and the laws of its physics. The thing is, Boltzmann's H-theorem was getting a time-asymmetric result out of time-symmetric laws.  If the time asymmetry wasn't coming from the laws, where else could it be coming from?  It was coming in from the way he was representing the system mathematically -- in particular, from his assumption that the motion of each of the particles at each time step could be treated as uncorrelated from all the other motions.  But this is actually destroying information as you move away from the boundary conditions.  So the entropy change is not time-symmetric; the direction of the time asymmetry in turn reflecting the fact that the boundary conditions were placed on the past, not the future.  Jheald 15:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I do not think very highly of the idea of including a grab bag of possible "resolutions". An encyclopedia article should be more focussed than that.  As it stands, it smacks too much of independent research.  There are two standard sources, at least, on the resolution of the paradox: Sir James Jeans The Dynamical Theory of Gases, Jan von Plato's Creating Modern Probability, and of course the Ehrenfests, along with Martin J. Klein, Paul Ehrenfest, vol. 1: The making of a theoretical physicist.98.109.241.146 (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Quantum mechanics
I'm cutting the following paragraph just added by Enormousdude:

 * However, quantum mechanical nature of interaction of microscopic particles results in less correlated states after interaction than before - thus providing mathematical explanation to asymmetry or microscopic processes (and thus, of some mactroscopic processes too) versus time reversal.

The usual unitary evolution of the system under quantum mechanics is just as time-symmetric and information preserving as the usual classical evolution of a system given by Liouville's equation.

Saying that interaction of microscopic particles under say the Schroedinger equation leads to less correlated states after interaction is simply unfounded. Jheald 20:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually, quantum mechanics does lead to less correlated states after interaction. Although the unitary evolution of the wave function described by Schrodinger's Equation is perfectly symmetric under time reversal, the process of wave packet reduction, AKA wave function collapse, is an irreversible process. 69.248.123.28 (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, well, wave-function collapse is its own bag of worms, isn't it? linas (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't call it collapse of the wave-function. The main idea is that the interaction with an environment leads to decoherence and thus the dynamics of the subsystem under consideration is described by the irreversible Liouville von Neumann equation, while the full system is still described by the reversible Schroedinger equation. There are dozens of papers on the subject, and the article on the Second Law already contains similar arguments. Hweimer (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

To me it seems otiose to drag in QM when Loschmidt's paradox really has a totally independent basis. If you want to write a research paper, perhaps. But in this encyclopedia article? A one-sentence mention that some Loschmidt's paradox has inspired some theoreticcl papers in Qm, with a few references, should suffice. One should not be posting a grab bag of possible solutions unless one has been commissioned to write an entire review article.. 98.109.241.146 (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The article contradicts itself
Furthermore, due to CPT symmetry reversal of time direction is equivalent to renaming particles as antiparticles and vice versa.

If hydrogen and antihydrogen do the same thing, they are not having opposite and therefore cancelling effects on entropy. This represents a contradiction of this formulation of Loschmidt's paradox. If on the other hand they did have a cancelling effect on each other with regards to entropy, Loschmidt's paradox would reduce to the question of baryogenesis, and thus the arrow of time exists due to the asymmetry between matter and antimatter in the universe. --75.49.222.55 01:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

 * The thing is, hydrogen and antihydrogen behave identically, although simply opposite in charge, and annihilate with eachother. Replacing all matter in the universe with all antimatter would have almost no difference, except for certain rare cases like neutral kaon decay (these processes give a very, very weak arrow of time, since they are so incredibly rare and do not account for the large-scale time asymmetry of ALL processes).  Reversal of time IS the same as renaming particles as antiparticles (and also switching their handedness--this is key) on small scales.  Note that as already stated, all small-scale laws seem time-symmetrical.  This provides no answer to the paradox of large-scale resolution.Eebster the Great (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Yeah, CP violation is normally invoked to explain why there's more baryonic matter in the universe; its *not* applicable to garden-variety mixing. linas (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Global vs Local
The Big Bang setting a boundary condition and resulting in an arrow of time for thermodynamics makes no sense since increase in entropy is observed in purely local system where the boundary starting time t_0 is not necessarily the Big Bang. In physics Also see http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/06/is-cosmology-behind-second-law.html "But the second law of thermodynamics is a local law that applies to any macroscopic process even if it takes a very short time in any small but macroscopic region of space. The law shows its muscles instantly. The slow cosmological evolution has virtually no detectable influence on such local processes." "The second law of thermodynamics trivially implies that the initial state of the Universe in the past had to have a smaller entropy than its current value. But it is incorrect to revert this implication." "Analogously, cosmological evolution can't influence the validity of any robust, local laws of physics such as the second law of thermodynamics today. And saying that the cosmological evolution in the past is the primary culprit either violates locality or it contradicts other dynamical laws of physics." ThVa (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

 * As pointed out in the "fluctuation theorem", given any out-of-equilibrium state you can indeed use local arguments from statistical mechanics to show the entropy will tend to increase, however the exact same arguments could be used in reverse to "retrodict" that at earlier times the system was in a higher-entropy state as well, but this time-reversed application of statistical mechanics would usually be wrong, since out-of-equilibrium states were often at even lower entropy in the past. The fact that entropy was lower in the past, in contradiction with a naive application of time-reversed statistical mechanics, is what is thought to require a cosmological explanation involving a low-entropy Big Bang. Hypnosifl (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the Universe as a whole is naked-eye obviously not in an equilibrium state according to the definitions of Thermodynamics, it makes no sense to define its entropy or try to apply the Second Law of Thermodynamics, in the thermodynamical sense of the concepts.98.109.241.146 (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The informational definition of entropy, Boltzmann's, used in Stat Mech, applies to probability distributions on states, and the evolution of a probability distribution. It does not apply to an individual state such as the initial condition of the Big Bang. So I recommend omitting all such discussions entirely: they have obviously left the framework within which Kelvin, Boltzmann, and Loschmidt were operating.98.109.241.146 (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Stosszahlansatz
The Stosszahlansatz is not the same hypothesis as Maxwell's "molecular chaos". They serve the same purpose, more or less, and hence introduce the irreversibility as the previous editor says. See also Pauli, Statistical Physics, MIT press paperback, p. 8 who says the same thing.

But it is too pejorative to say that such a hypothesis is "flawed". The hypothesis is wunderbarisch. The use of it in a derivation that professes to deduce the Second Law of Thermodyanmics from Newtonian Mechanics makes the derivation flawed. No progress in Stat MEch can be made without a statistical hypothesis somewhere. So I edited the text to be more neutral. 98.109.241.146 (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

My proposed draft, not exclusive.
Loschmidt's paradox concerns the use of Statistical Mechanics to prove the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy always increases in real processes: all real processes are irreversible (the reversible processes, which pass from one equilibrium point to another to another \dots are merely theoretical, they cannot occur in Nature): that is, when all the effects on the environment are included. A small system interacting with the environment can shed some of its own entropy to the environment, so the system's entropy can decrease, but only provded the amount of increase in entropy which is incurred by the environment more than cancels it out, so that the total entropy increases, as required. Statistical Mechanics has the goal of deducing the laws of Thermodynamics, especailly including the Second Law, from ... Thermodynamics was already a well established physical theory, and so was Analytical Dynamics, but they used such different concepts that it was completely mysterious how they could both be true in the same world. The kinetic theory of heat had to contend against the rival fluid theory of heat. The goal of Statistical Mechanics, invented by Maxwell and followed up by Boltzmann, was to demonstrate the relations between the two, and thus justify the theory of atoms and molecules and justify the kinetic theory of heat, that heat was simply the macroscopic manifestation of the kinetic energy of the motion of the microscopic molecules. It was therefore important to start out by assuming Newton's Laws, study the trajectories in phase space of a closed, conservative dynamical system, and end up with the laws of Thermodynamics, without assuming any new laws of Physics.

Boltzmann invented another definition of entropy, via his $H$-function (which is proportional to the negative of the entropy). Boltzmann defined the entropy of a probability distribution $f$ on the micro-states (which Sir James Jeans calls `dynamical states, in contrast to the traditional `thermodynamic state', which we would now call a `macro-state') of a dynamical system. It is what we would now call an information-theoretical definition with no obvious relation to thermodynamics. But he proved it was related to the previous thermodynamic conept of entropy, and he proved his infamous $H$-theorem, that $dH\over dt$ is always zero or negative. He did not prove this by a direct calculation of $dH\over dt$, which is too hard, but made some statistical ansatzes. The statistical ansatz used is also famous: it is called the Stosszahlansatz and makes an assumption about the probabilities of different collisions of perfectly spherical molecules. Maxwell also had had to make a statistical ansatz, but his was different, and is referred to, more or less, as `molecular chaos'. After Maxwell's first formulation of what he meant by `molecular chaos' was criticised, he adopted a different formulation. The differences between these different hypotheses, all of which are statistical or probabilistic in nature, are irrelevant to this topic.

Boltzmann took Loschmidt's criticism seriously and changed his explanations. That is, Loschmidt's criticism was accepted as a valid refutation of the literal meaning of what Boltzmann wrote. But Boltzmann hadn't meant it, and explained it more clearly and at greater length. Prof. von Plato has a useful discussion of the details. In his opinion, Boltzmann's assertions should not be taken literally. They need to be interpreted in light of the context and flow of argument wich surrounds them, including other papers not yet written, and are too simple to correctly express Boltzmann's meaning, which was way ahead of its time.

Loschmidt's paradox proves that the literal meaning of many of Boltzmann's statements is untenable, and this is generally accepted. The resolution of Loschmidt's paradox has been to clarify the logic of Boltzmann's assertions, and this was done carefully and at length by Ehrenfest (a doctoral student of Boltzmann's), at Felix Klein's request, in 1911, in a review article for Klein's encyclopedia, The Conceptual Basis Foundations for Statistical Mechanics, which impressed Lorentz so much that he chose Ehrenfest, to be his successor in Holland, when he could not get Einstein. But this was already done briefly but clearly by Sir James Jeans in his standard textbook, The Dynamical ...

[Um, this draft is for physics.stackexchange and so is not encyclopedic in style. Some should be cut and some should be revised. Mañana.] == The supporting quotes from Jeans's book p. 38. James H. Jeans, The Dynamical Theory of Gases, fourth edition, 1925. Apparent Irreversibility of Motion When a gas is not in a steady state, it follows from \seq 23 (p. 24) that $dH\over dt$ must be negative. Some writers have interpreted this to mean that $H$ will continually decrease, until it reaches a minimum value, and will then retain that value for ever. A motion of this kind would, however, be dynamically irreversible, and therefore inconsistent with the dynamical equations of motion from which it professes to have been deduced. As will appear later (cf. \seqs 70---73), the truth is that we have at this point reached the limit within which the assumption of molecular chaos leads to accurate results. The motion is, in point of fact, strictly reversible, and the apparent irreversibility is merely an illusion introduced by the imperfections of the statistical method.

pp. 65f. The assumption of molecular chaos (corrected, if necessary, in accordance with \seq 69) will therefore give correct results, provided it is interpreted with reference to the basis of probability supplied by our generalised space [phase space], and provided it is understood that it gives probable, and not certain, results. If we wish to obtain strictly accurate results, the quantities calculated from it must not be regarded as applying to a single system, but must be supposed to be averaged over all the systems in the generalised space which satisfy certain conditions. \dots

We now come to what is, at first sight a paradox. Let us suppose that \dots the value of $f$ will be the same for each of these two systems and both systems are equally to be included in the average of $dH\over dt$. But the motion of the first system is exactly the reverse of that of the second system. It would therefore appear as though the values of $dH\over dt$ must be equal and opposite for the two systems, so that the average of $dH\over dt$ for these two must be zero. Since the whole of the systems corresponding to a given $f$ fall into pairs of this type, it might be inferred that the average value of $dH\over dt$ must be zero.

[This paradox is then resolved in detail in the rest of the page.]

It is interesting that Loschmidt, an important scientist in his day, is referenced in Sir James Jeans's text several times, but for his scientific contributions: not for this paradox. Perhaps this is because British scientists had already made this observation before Loschmidt published it. (ref., von Plato).

98.109.241.146 (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Vortex tubes
Experimental proof of the Loschmidt gravito-thermal effect can be easily seen in a Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube wherein a force far greater than gravity separates a gas into measurably hotter and colder streams as it redistributes kinetic energy, just as happens in a planet's troposphere due to the force of gravity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.147.139.222 (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:RS? Paradoctor (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Conclusory conclusion?
From the introduction:

"Reversible laws of motion cannot explain why we experience our world to be in such a comparatively low state of entropy at the moment (compared to the equilibrium entropy of universal heat death); and to have been at even lower entropy in the past."

I'm totally sympathetic to this line of thinking, and indeed I'd rather read this line than a pastiche, but is this really the conclusion that science has drawn, today? I would think the paradox remains unresolved to this day, including (of course) whether it really is a paradox, and above all, that it would be difficult to justify this sentence by a citeable consensus of accepted publications, as opposed to the pure reason of the reasonable man. 84.227.248.81 (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I agree - There is a paradox here, and I wish I knew the name of it. If we consider the universe to be a closed system and our present condition to be part of a low-entropy fluctuation, then it is overwhelmingly probable that our present condition is at or very near the bottom of that fluctuation and that entropy increases in both directions of time. The idea that we are on an entropy climb from an even lower entropy state (e.g. the big bang) is overwhelmingly unlikely. PAR (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Loschmidt's paradox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20121216121427/http://www.scientificblogging.com/hammock_physicist/fibonacci_chaos_and_times_arrow to http://www.scientificblogging.com/hammock_physicist/fibonacci_chaos_and_times_arrow

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Loschmidt's paradox


text:
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 23, 2004

The Russian constitutional crisis of 1993 began in earnest on September 21, when Russian President Boris Yeltsin dissolved the country's parliament and ordered a referendum on a new constitution. The parliament then deemed Yeltsin's presidency unconstitutional and appointed its own acting president. Tensions built quickly, and the representatives barricaded themselves in the parliament building, the "Russian White House." After ten days, Yeltsin, bolstered by support from the military, was able to seize the White House by force. (more...)

Recently featured: Rudyard Kipling – Auto rickshaw – Algorithm


text:
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 22, 2004

Rudyard Kipling was a British author and poet, born in India. He is best known for the children's story The Jungle Book (1894), the Indian spy novel Kim (1901), the poems "Gunga Din" (1892) and "If —" (1895), and his many short stories. He was also an outspoken defender of Western imperialism, and coined the phrase "The White Man's Burden." The height of his popularity was the first decade of the 20th century; in 1907 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. In his own lifetime he was primarily considered a poet, and was even offered a knighthood and the post of British Poet Laureate — though he turned them both down. (more...)

Recently featured: Auto rickshaw – Algorithm – Jim Henson


text:
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 21, 2004

The auto rickshaw is a vehicle for hire that is one of the chief modes of transport in India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. It is a motorised version of the traditional rickshaw, a small two- or three-wheeled cart pulled by a person, and the velotaxi. The auto rickshaw is also related to its Thai cousin, the Tuk-Tuk. In many cities in Southern India, auto rickshaws have a notorious reputation as the vehicle of operation in shady criminal activities, which range from petty thievery and "chain snatching" (slang for stealing the necklaces worn by Indian women) to murder. (more...)

Recently featured: Algorithm – Jim Henson – Christianity


text: User:Twiek

title: User:Twiek


text:
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 20, 2004

An algorithm is a set of instructions for accomplishing some task which, given a defined set of inputs, will result in some recognisable end-state (contrast with heuristic). The concept of an algorithm is often illustrated by the example of a recipe, although many algorithms are much more complex; algorithms often have steps that repeat (iterate) or require decisions (such as logic or comparison) until the task is completed. Different algorithms may complete the same task with a different set of instructions in more or less time, space, or effort than others. Algorithms are sometimes implemented as computer programs but are more often implemented by other means, such as in a biological neural network (for example, the human brain implementing arithmetic or an insect relocating food), or in electric circuits or in a mechanical device. (more...)

Recently featured: Jim Henson – Christianity – Franks


text:
User talk:Isidore2k

Learning User talk

 * First Statement. Testing long sentence... the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. Another quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog

Isidore2k
 * Second statement. This occurs after the first

Isidore2k 06:59, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)Isidore2k

title: User talk:Isidore2k


text:
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 19, 2004

Jim Henson was an American filmmaker and television producer, one of the most important puppeteers in modern American television history. Creator of the Muppets, and the leading force behind their long creative run, Henson brought an engaging cast of characters, innovative ideas, and a sense of timing and humor to millions of people. He is also widely acknowledged for the ongoing vision of faith, friendship, love of magic, and unconditional love which influenced nearly all of his work. (more...)

Recently featured: Christianity – Franks – Kashrut


text:
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 18, 2004

Christianity is a monotheistic religion, encompassing many religious traditions that trace their origins to Jesus Christ. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and the Lord and sole Savior of all humanity as the Jewish Messiah. Over the past two millennia, Christianity has diverged into three main branches: Catholicism, Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy. Collectively, it is the world's largest single religion, with nearly a third of the world's population as its adherents. (more...)

Recently featured: Franks – Kashrut – Paradox


text:
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 17, 2004

The Franks formed one of several west Germanic tribes who entered the late Roman Empire from Frisia as foederati and established a lasting realm in an area that covers part of today's France and Germany (Franconia), forming the historic kernel of both these modern countries. The Frankish realm underwent many partitions and repartitions; since the Franks divided their property among surviving sons, and lacked a broad sense of a res publica, they conceived of the realm as a large amount of private property. This practice explains in part the difficulty of describing precisely the dates and physical boundaries of any of the Frankish kingdoms and who ruled the various sections. (more...)

Recently featured: Kashrut – Paradox – Éire


text:
Template talk:To do/to do

 * Make the template work equally well for non-article namespaces? Done
 * Fix problem with Category talk pages (discussion below). Done
 * Resolve conflict between  and   parameters; the now-deleted Todo-Named had a probable solution.
 * Merge (and/or nominate for deletion) Todo templates at [ Special:AllPages]; Category:WikiProjects task lists, Category:Wikipedia pages with to-do lists; WNBP todo, Logic task
 * Category parameter
 * Image parameter
 * Modify the pt-interwiki (not exist) to exitent interwiki: pt:Predefinição:Por fazer
 * Fix the problem with point lists and numbered lists in the inner argument (remedy: inner). See discussion.
 * Add a default parameter that displays the date of last update, to help make it clearer when a use of this template is out of date

title: Template talk:To do/to do


text:
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 16, 2004

The laws of Kashrut are the Jewish dietary laws. Food in accord with Jewish law is termed kosher, from the Hebrew term kasher, meaning "fit". Food which is not in accord with Jewish law is termed treifah - "torn". The basic laws of kashrut are in the Torah, their details explicated in the oral law (the Mishnah and the Talmud) and codified by the later rabbinical authorities. From the context of the laws in the Biblical book of Leviticus, the purpose of kashrut is related to ritual purity and holiness. (more...)

Recently featured: Paradox – Éire – Vampire


text:
Raymond Ramazani Baya

Raymond Ramazani Baya (16 June 1943 – 1 January 2019) was a Congolese politician. He served as the foreign minister of that country under the transitional government following his appointment to that post on 23 July 2004, by vice-president Jean-Pierre Bemba, who was allowed to appoint the foreign minister.

Biography
Ramazani was a long-time member of the regime of President Mobutu, most prominently as Minister of Information and as Ambassador to France.

On 23 November 1996, Ramazani was staying in a hotel in Nice, not far from Mobutu's Villa del Mare in Roquebrune Cap-Martin when he was summoned by Mobutu to assist at a meeting with Central African President Ange-Félix Patassé. In Menton, he hit two adolescents with his car while driving well above the speed limit. One victim immediately died, whereas the other went in a coma and died shortly thereafter. He quit his position as ambassador, and was condemned to a suspended sentence of two years in prison and a fine of 56,000 FF.

After the fall of Mobutu in 1997, Ramazani became dissatisfied with the new government of Laurent Kabila. He joined the Movement for the Liberation of Congo, a rebel group based in Gbadolite which was led by Jean-Pierre Bemba. In 2003 the group entered into a transitional government with other rebel groups and the Joseph Kabila government. Bemba became a vice-president and, among other things, was able to appoint the foreign minister. Antoine Ghonda became foreign minister, but Ramazani was by this time an important advisor on diplomacy to Bemba. He became foreign minister in 2004 when Ghonda was sacked. His time in that post ended in February 2007, at the beginning of President Joseph Kabila's second term, when the government of Prime Minister Antoine Gizenga took office. He died on 1 January 2019.

title: Raymond Ramazani Baya