They're Marching Against God - Your .02
07-25-2002, 09:59 AM
#501
Yes, it should be "ho" based on what I've read. It's possible it could be both, but I think it's "ho".
07-25-2002, 09:59 AM
#502
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Santa Clara
Posts: 1,607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
magician,
Yes, critical point phenomena and self-organizing systems are quite ubiquitous in Nature. There are literally hundreds of independent examples of them.
Keep in mind that the laws of thermodynamics only specify that entropy increases in closed systems -- but, save for a few cleverly-designed experiments, the only closed system is the entire Universe itself. All self-organizing exploits (like your life and crystals) decrease entropy locally -- but they have the sinister effect of actually increasing the overall entropy of the entire Universe.
There is no known process which is capable of decreasing the entropy of the entire Universe -- so your statement that systems like life and crystals "work in contrast to entropy" is on questionable footing.
- Warren
Yes, critical point phenomena and self-organizing systems are quite ubiquitous in Nature. There are literally hundreds of independent examples of them.
Keep in mind that the laws of thermodynamics only specify that entropy increases in closed systems -- but, save for a few cleverly-designed experiments, the only closed system is the entire Universe itself. All self-organizing exploits (like your life and crystals) decrease entropy locally -- but they have the sinister effect of actually increasing the overall entropy of the entire Universe.
There is no known process which is capable of decreasing the entropy of the entire Universe -- so your statement that systems like life and crystals "work in contrast to entropy" is on questionable footing.
- Warren
07-25-2002, 10:00 AM
#504
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Yorba Linda, CA
Posts: 6,592
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by woodyandy
I can spell things that don't exist any way I want.
I can spell things that don't exist any way I want.
07-25-2002, 10:03 AM
#505
[QUOTE]Originally posted by chroot
[B]magician,
Yes, critical point phenomena and self-organizing systems are quite ubiquitous in Nature.
[B]magician,
Yes, critical point phenomena and self-organizing systems are quite ubiquitous in Nature.
07-25-2002, 10:09 AM
#506
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Yorba Linda, CA
Posts: 6,592
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by chroot
There is no known process which is capable of decreasing the entropy of the entire Universe -- so your statement that systems like life and crystals "work in contrast to entropy" is on questionable footing.
There is no known process which is capable of decreasing the entropy of the entire Universe -- so your statement that systems like life and crystals "work in contrast to entropy" is on questionable footing.
As an interesting question, following a line in your post, does the local organization attendent to, say, crystal growth, increase the entropy locally around (but outside) the crystals, or is the effect broader. Put another way, does organization here result in more disorganization close to here or simply more disorganization elsewhere but here. This is beyond my experience.
07-25-2002, 10:16 AM
#507
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Santa Clara
Posts: 1,607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JonBoy,
An interesting question, for sure!
The answer is that the difficulty arises not in showing that entropy always increases in closed systems, only in making closed systems.
Most systems on earth require energy input from the Sun, which makes the Sun part of the entropic system. You can actually think of the Sun as an enormous reservoir of entropy which we humans (and yes, lima beans, gnats, and amoebae) constantly consume. It's experimentally rather difficult to assess the Sun's entropy, though. If it were easy to assess the Sun's entropy, it'd be very easy to show that every process necessarily increases the entropy of the entire system.
- Warren
An interesting question, for sure!
The answer is that the difficulty arises not in showing that entropy always increases in closed systems, only in making closed systems.
Most systems on earth require energy input from the Sun, which makes the Sun part of the entropic system. You can actually think of the Sun as an enormous reservoir of entropy which we humans (and yes, lima beans, gnats, and amoebae) constantly consume. It's experimentally rather difficult to assess the Sun's entropy, though. If it were easy to assess the Sun's entropy, it'd be very easy to show that every process necessarily increases the entropy of the entire system.
- Warren
07-25-2002, 10:20 AM
#509
[QUOTE]Originally posted by chroot
[B]JonBoy,
An interesting question, for sure!
The answer is that the difficulty arises not in showing that entropy always increases in closed systems, only in making closed systems.
Most systems on earth require energy input from the Sun, which makes the Sun part of the entropic system.
[B]JonBoy,
An interesting question, for sure!
The answer is that the difficulty arises not in showing that entropy always increases in closed systems, only in making closed systems.
Most systems on earth require energy input from the Sun, which makes the Sun part of the entropic system.
07-25-2002, 10:56 AM
#510
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Santa Clara
Posts: 1,607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JonBoy,
Clever apparatus is the key. There are a variety of experiments which truly have no external energy (or entropy) dependencies, and can be regarded as examples of the phenomenon of entropy constantly increasing in closed systems. If you make mathematical models that describe this behavior, you will find that the models predict that entropy always increases for all closed systems.
So, if the experiment indicates that entropy always increases in human-built closed systems, we have to extrapolate that the physics works the same way in all places (and in this case, at all scales) in the universe. This is one of the most fundamental axioms of science. It may not be correct, but we haven't encountered a single instance of it being incorrect.
Like most components of science, we can only assume that a plethora of examples, and an absence of counter-examples, indicates we're making some progress. Can we guarantee that we're correct? Only mathematically. That's why we scientists try to avoid having too much 'faith' in our theories.
- Warren
Clever apparatus is the key. There are a variety of experiments which truly have no external energy (or entropy) dependencies, and can be regarded as examples of the phenomenon of entropy constantly increasing in closed systems. If you make mathematical models that describe this behavior, you will find that the models predict that entropy always increases for all closed systems.
So, if the experiment indicates that entropy always increases in human-built closed systems, we have to extrapolate that the physics works the same way in all places (and in this case, at all scales) in the universe. This is one of the most fundamental axioms of science. It may not be correct, but we haven't encountered a single instance of it being incorrect.
Like most components of science, we can only assume that a plethora of examples, and an absence of counter-examples, indicates we're making some progress. Can we guarantee that we're correct? Only mathematically. That's why we scientists try to avoid having too much 'faith' in our theories.
- Warren