# What is the opposite of "entropy"?

If entropy is a measure of the disorder of a system, what’s the opposite? That is, what’s the word given to the measure of the amount of order in a system? “Anti-entropy”???

Possibly ‘the coffee cup theory’: that the seperate states of sugar, milk, coffee and water after entropy has changed into the state of a nice cuppa coffee - left long enough - the seperate states will form back again into there seperate states.

I believe it’s “ectropy”.

Disorder is a simplified tag for ‘motion’ and the opposite of both is absolute zero, if I’m not mistaken. The theoretical point in which particles stop moving. Awareness that particles are a manifestation of consciousness potential can lead to the realization that the chilled dimension of absolute zero underlies the 5-8 dimensions we currently reside in.

The opposite of entropy is the fourth dimension, not time, but the fourth dimension. The fourth dimension is constant.

misentropy, disentropy, extropy?

Entropy is an ambiguous term. It is ambiguous because there are several different formulas that define it in physics. One for steam engines, one for molecules, and a couple more for information theory. Its proper meaning is “whatever those formulas stand for”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

However, loosely speaking, entropy is measure of the ratio of useless energy to total energy. Or, unknown information to total information (in bits). Or just the energy in the vibration of atoms to the total energy in atoms.

As you probably gather, there is a peculiarity in these measures, which is that what is useless or useful depends on the observer, and is not an absolute ratio. This counterintuitive finding is real, and is quite typical of things seen at the quantum mechanical scale. The observer and the observed together make up a measure.

Maxwell’s demon, which is capable of tracking individual molecules, records lower entropy at all times than Maxwell. Simply because the demon sees more useful energy in the detailed movement of molecules.

Sounds like a complex theory stands behind this obscure statement - I’ll probably ask about it later.

This one too.

OK, so we have “ectopy”, “misentropy”, “disentropy”, “extropy”, and probably others. Are any of these the formal word? Is there a formal word? In any case, let’s use Faust’s word “ectopy”. I have a follow up question now.

Would I be correct in assuming that the phenomenon of entropy leads to complex or “high-energy” systems degrading into simpler or “low-energy” system - the most fitting example being the theoretical heat death of the universe? I mean, isn’t entropy and the heat death scenario both based on the second law of thermodynamics - that densely concentrated centers of energy have a tendency to disipate or “spread” into the surrounding environment and thus become less concentrated. In other words, highly complex and concentrated centers of energy tend to “settle”.

And then, would I be correct in assuming that what we are calling ectropy can lead to simple or “low-energy” systems building themselves up into complex or “high-energy” systems? The example I’m thinking of is biology. Biology is a result of simple phenomena (carbon molecules or primordeal soup) evolving into more and more complex systems. Not only does it have this tendency to evolve, but it seems to have a built in inclination to perpetuate the increase in complexity. That is, it seems to be driven to maximize ectropy.

Are these fair statements to make?

All things dissipate, then propagate, compress and coalesce. They then dissipate again in the cycle. All energy, in dissipation where we are, is becoming less complex. The opposite is the fourth dimension, where no photons are emitted, thus a constant state, or no entropy. There is no entropy in the fourth dimension because there is no motion, or speed.

Tell me about this fourth dimension. You said it wasn’t time. Do you consider time a dimension akin to space? Is the fourth dimension a spatial one or something else?

The fourth dimension is the dimension where photons are no longer emitted. This makes it motionless, yet within the first three spatial dimensions. The fourth dimension moves relative to the first three, explaining Einstein’s ‘spooky-action-at-a-distance’.

Energy is of the fourth dimension, being ‘rotated’ into it. When matter exists in the fourth dimension, it is seen as energy, a wave or a photon.

Here’s where it get’s real good. YOU have energy…YOU have matter. Now WHERE are you? Think about it for a bit…this explains many things…

Ummmm . . .

delta G/(delta H * T) = -delta S

So, I can give you the opposite of the change in entropy. Is that adequate?

Sorry MP (if I can call you that), but I’m a little slow. Let me see if I can paraphrase you:

If a particle of matter moves into the fourth dimension, we end up experiencing it as energy. This accounts for photons. Photons are material particles that have moved into this fourth dimension. It does not move in the fourth dimension, but the fourth dimensions moves relative to our three more familiar spatial dimensions (plus time), therefore giving off the impression that photons move.

Is this right?

So delta S is the change in ectropy?

You’re getting there Photons will propagate in the fourth dimension in opposite directions due to the expansion. Their locality will remain, the dimension yet expanding. To the first three dimensions the expansion will appear as a wavefront, giving us the spherically symmetrical propagation of a photons wave probability.

The fourth dimension moves, what is contained in it does not- in relation to the first three. Now let’s get more specific-

Say you put a cup on a table. That cup has energy that is propagating through space-time with a velocity of c. The energy is propagating at the velocity of c because the fourth dimension is expanding at the velocity of c.
This fundamental motion is where vast amounts of energy is derived.
Let’s say the cup were put into the fourth dimension. The cup would manifest itself as trillions of photons propagating the spherical wavefronts of energy that would ‘surf’ the expanding dimension.

Well, that’s definitely an intreguing theory. Maybe you could start a thread on it so that we could delve into it a little deeper.

For now, however, I’d be interested to know what you (and others) have to say about my conception of entropy and ectropy - particularly as I described them 6 posts ago. Do you think I have the right idea?

The thread will be 1,000 pages long… But this is far deeper than this issue alone, a difficult journey to the most simple conclusion, as it must be.
And, by the way, provable.