Logical Hierarchies

Don't let entrophy get you down, Jan. The second law is another example of a model that is overvalued. It is just a model after all.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jan</i>
Have a look at the article "Small Systems Defy Second Law" : physicsweb.org/article/news/6/7/11

According to the article, we may have the condition that decreasing entropy on lower scales will compensate the increasing entropy on higher scales, thereby rendering the entropy constant.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
There is more detail at www.science.org.au/sats2003/evans.htm They have developed a Fluctuation Theorem that, if I understand correctly, allows them to predict the probability that a cyclic system will produce negative entropy given the size of the system and the time that it is run. This sounds very similar in concept to the wave functions of QM. It will be interesting to see if anyone can demonstrate the effect with even smaller systems or whether they become chaotic.


JR

EBTX,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
MM is not in accord with experiment to the same degree as the Standard Model (however flawed it may be). MM requires a total violation of the directional character of time with respect to the 2nd law of thermodynamics ... based on no experimental evidence whatsoever. Only conjectured "scales" are offered to offset this liability. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The 2nd law is untestable, period. No experiment can ever verify or invalidate it. Therefore, the experimental evidence you cite is irrelevent. The only requirement is that any new theory be consistent with the experiments that have already been performed.

The universality of 'cause and effect' is all that is required to account for the directional nature of time. The reason why the 2nd law is being defended so tenaciously is modern physics has dispensed with 'cause and effect' because it requires a mechanistic interpretation of reality. However, many of those who study the quantum world are pretty comfortable with the idea that there is a lot more going on below the surface than they know or have yet imagined.


JR

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The 2nd law is untestable, period. No experiment can ever verify or invalidate it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Wow! You actually posted here ... a measure of confidence ... in the idea that energy can be made to flow from a heat reservoir at uniform temperature to another at that same uniform temperature, i.e. we can build our civilization on "free energy" ... that we can dispense with 200 years of heat flow experiments and observations as if they were the commonest sort of tripe without physical significance.

The only law of physics more robust than the 2nd law of thermodynamics is the 1st law of thermodynamics. The 2nd has been tested and verified in literally tens of thousands of experiments and is validated daily by literally millions of machines that run according to its rule by millions of human beings in a hundred thousand different settings. If this does not validate/verify the 2nd law then there are no laws of physics.

EBTX,

So you deny the fact that certain atoms and molecules can aggregate into a very complex ordering without any explicit energy source being given?

"It only takes one white crow to proof that not all crows are black."

EBTX,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The 2nd law is untestable, period. No experiment can ever verify or invalidate it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Wow! You actually posted here ... a measure of confidence ... in the idea that energy can be made to flow from a heat reservoir at uniform temperature to another at that same uniform temperature, i.e. we can build our civilization on "free energy" ... that we can dispense with 200 years of heat flow experiments and observations as if they were the commonest sort of tripe without physical significance.

The only law of physics more robust than the 2nd law of thermodynamics is the 1st law of thermodynamics. The 2nd has been tested and verified in literally tens of thousands of experiments and is validated daily by literally millions of machines that run according to its rule by millions of human beings in a hundred thousand different settings. If this does not validate/verify the 2nd law then there are no laws of physics.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I made no such claim! The only way to verify the 2nd law would be to devise and conduct and experiment that measured the entropy change OF THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. It does not automatically follow from the experiments that have been performed and our everyday experience that the 2nd law applies to the universe as a whole. This is an assumption arrived at by induction. This was my claim.


JR