Re: Lizard engines and rat engines
- From: Guy Hoelzer <hoelzer@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:17:10 -0400 (EDT)
Hi Jim,
in article db2794$2a7v$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Perplexed in Peoria at
jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 7/12/05 10:02 PM:
> "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:...
>>
>> "Guy Hoelzer" <hoelzer@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:davmfp$1ee5$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> The revolution in the paradigm here requires a restatement of
>>> the second law, although there are also many proponents of articulating a
>>> fourth law. The difference is subtle in my estimation, but also profound.
>>> Rather than having a second law that merely limits the scope of potential
>>> outcome of a dynamic process to those that do not decrease the entropy of a
>>> closed system (IMHO this is code for the universe as a whole), many
>>> physicists are coming to appreciate a law that favors the emergence of
>>> systems that increase the RATE of entropy gain in closed systems through
>>> self-organization.
>>
>> First, according to the thermodynamics textbooks, a "closed system" smaller
>> than the universe as a whole is not only possible, it is an essential concept
>> in the idea structure. Thermodynamics textbooks are not written in code.
>>
>> Second, you seem to misunderstand what the standard second law DOES say. It
>> doesn't say that the entropy of a closed system must not decrease. Put some
>> water in a bottle, stopper the bottle, and put the bottle in your freezer.
>> The contents of the bottle constitute a closed system, and the entropy of
>> this closed system decreases and the water cools and then freezes. (But
>> perhaps you don't think that the bottle of water constitutes a closed
>> system. Guy, I have to say that this kind of denial of the standard
>> definitions reminds me of Edser's methodology.)
>
> Remember how Edser recently found three definitions of linkage equilibrium
> on the web, and one of them was completely wrong? Well, I decided to check
> what the web has to say about "closed systems" and the 2nd law. So I did
> a Google web search using this search string:
> "closed system" "isolated system" entropy thermodynamics
>
> I got 1600 hits. The top ones were all tutorials on thermodynamics. So
> I started reading them to find graphic evidence that you (Guy) are wrong.
> The results were shocking.
>
> Of the first six hits, only one (Wikipedia) got it right. The rest seem to
> agree with you that the second law says that entropy is non-decreasing in
> a CLOSED system. Further down the list, sanity begins to prevail. By the
> time I got to the 19th hit, my side in the dispute had a clear majority
> with 10 sites getting it right, 7 getting it wrong, and 2 not defining a
> "closed system". It seemed like a good place to stop the experiment, since
> the 20th site offers a "psychedelic viewpoint" on the question. Check it out!
> http://www.futurehi.net/archives/000689.html
>
> Also worth a look is this site which discusses two candidate formulations
> for a "4th law". (It didn't define a "closed system").
> http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/nov2000/973893769.Ch.r.html
>
> I continue to maintain that a thermodynamic "closed system" is one which
> can exchange energy (but not matter) with its surroundings. An "isolated
> system" is one which exchanges neither matter nor energy.
Ah ... You caught me in some sloppy terminology. I am aware that some
distinguish between closed and isolated systems, although most of those I
interact with define a closed system as you properly defined an isolated
system. I should have been more precise and used the term "isolated" rather
than "closed."
> One formulation
> of the 2nd law is that the entropy of an ISOLATED system cannot decrease.
Yes. This is what I meant.
> I will continue to maintain that this is the standard terminology in
> thermodynamics until someone quotes at least one textbook or reputable
> encyclopedia article that contradicts me. (Textbooks on general systems
> theory, cybernetics, or complex systems don't count. Those are distinct
> disciplines with the right to formulate their own terminology.)
>
> Just as a sanity check, I would request that any sbe poster who has any kind
> of credentials in thermodynamics (Larry?) correct me if I am wrong, or confirm
> that I am right.
>
> So who are the idiotic web authors who got it wrong? College professors
> mostly.
> These were online lecture notes. Some of them, using the correct definition
> of "closed", even provided "proofs" that the second law forbids the decrease
> of entropy in a closed system. Bizarre!
>
> I also note that the creationist sites (there were several) mostly got it
> right. There is something seriously wrong with this picture.
Yes again. I'm not sure if there is any value in having a term for a system
that can "exchange energy (but not matter) with its surroundings", and I
think using the term "closed system" for this is easily misinterpreted.
However, at present there is a large number of scientists, including
physicists as you found out, that use the term "closed" as a synonym for
"isolated", which I think causes the problem you found. As for me, I will
try to be more careful and use the term "isolated" to avoid confusion in the
future.
Guy
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: Lizard engines and rat engines
- From: Perplexed in Peoria
- Re: Lizard engines and rat engines
- Prev by Date: Re: Lizard engines and rat engines
- Next by Date: Re: Lizard engines and rat engines
- Previous by thread: Re: Lizard engines and rat engines
- Next by thread: Re: Lizard engines and rat engines
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
