A
Anonymous
Guest
Can there ever be reverse entropy?
Unfortunately this link won't quite post properly - I was trying to get it to go to the third one down, the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Bill.
Unfortunately this link won't quite post properly - I was trying to get it to go to the third one down, the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Bill.
There was something in New Scientist about this a few weeks ago. Technically life seems to evolve to waste energy more effectively. The apparent increase in order of living systems is more than compensated for by the increased waste generated by the making of those systems and by the increased waste they generate during their lifetimes.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Yes, that is no doubt true.
talking about life as a system before intelligent design takes a hand
However a solar collection scheme designed to collect all the wasted energy that streams out of stars to become useless photons
would allow data processng to occur in a quadrillion Matrix scenarios, or something even more information rich.
If all the starlight in all the galaxies is being used to run computers, what then of entropy?
We can at least slow it down...
talking about life as a system before intelligent design takes a hand
However a solar collection scheme designed to collect all the wasted energy that streams out of stars to become useless photons
would allow data processng to occur in a quadrillion Matrix scenarios, or something even more information rich.
If all the starlight in all the galaxies is being used to run computers, what then of entropy?
We can at least slow it down...
A
Anonymous
Guest
Now there's an assumption or three... (Not yours tho', Intaglio.)
What increase in order? I've never yet seen an entirely convincing argument supporting the idea that the complexity of higher organisms is an increase in order. We assume that the complexity of life such as ourselves is an increase in order, but why not look upon it as an increase in disorder? After all, there are extremophile organisms far simpler than we are that can survive in conditions that would kill complex, more ordered organisms in seconds (if not faster), there are lowly single-cell creatures that can hibernate for tens of millennia, and indeed some that are to all intents and purposes immortal in the right conditions.
Anome
Bibliomancer
- Joined
- May 23, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
- Location
- Left, and to the Back
Nope, doesn't work that way. We can only decrease entropy locally. Whatever we do to decrease the entropy of a system will result in increased entropy outside that system.
For example: suppose you have two bricks lying on the ground. Take one of them and place it neatly on top of the other. The system of two bricks has lower entropy than it did before, but the system consisting of the two bricks plus you has higher entropy (your arm is slightly more tired, you've given off some heat, etc).
The decrease in entropy caused by putting the two bricks into a neat pile is more than offset by the amount of work required to put them into the neat pile.
The same applies to the sunlight driven computer scenario. The efficiency loss from converting the starlight into information in the computer will result in a net increase of entropy in the Universe as a whole. It doesn't slow down, it may well speed up.
And Zygon: Intaglio referred to an apparent increase in order. The whole point of the theory described in New Scientist was that the alleged increase wasn't (due to the amount of work required to create it). The theory was an attempt to reconcile the perception with Thermodynamics, and head off the arguments of creationists (such as the one at the start of the thread).
A
Anonymous
Guest
I know that is what everyone says, but all but one billionth of the starlight is being lost at the moment.
Convert it into processing power and you could model a million universes with apparently increasing order--
technically the entropy still goes up, because of efficiency, but the universe is bleeding photons that we will never get back- some will even get lost in the local expansion-
so I vote collect em!
A
Anonymous
Guest
Not quite true. Stars do not bleed photons at all. Objects with large masses such as stars generate Electro magnetic and Gravitaional Fields. These Fields create time space. As Galaxies move further apart due to thier inertia time space is created. The universe is still expanding. Big Bang is not theory we are living in it.
JamesWhitehead
Piffle Prospector
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 14,223
I have read a very interesting essay on the impact of the notion of
entropy on the literary imagination in the nineteenth century. The
idea that the Sun was subject to this decline was said to have had
an impact almost as great as the theories of Darwin. Occult ideas
grew up to counter this dying outer sun with the promise of internal
light, underground worlds and secret powers. The key text was Bulwer
Lytton's novel The Coming Race, the prototype for endless science-fiction
fantasies and horrid Master-race ideas ever since.
Yes, here is the essay I read, cached on Google, I can't connect to the
original:
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cach..._forms.htm+Lytton+vril+entropy&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
excerpt:
"By 1862 John Ruskin had confided to a correspondent, “I want to believe in Apollo—but can't—the sun is said to be getting rusty (is it not?).”__ Ruskin may have been reacting to one of thermodynamicist William Thomson’s popular articles on solar physics published earlier that year, “On the Age of the Sun's Heat,” stating that the authority of physics granted to the sun’s prior existence far less time than was posited by Darwin's spacious chronologies of natural evolution._ Thomson’s best estimate of the age of the sun was somewhere between ten and one hundred million years._ His conclusion was that, “As for the future, we may say, with equal certainty, that inhabitants of the earth cannot continue to enjoy the light and heat essential to their life, for many million years longer, unless sources now unknown to us are prepared in the great storehouse of creation.”
entropy on the literary imagination in the nineteenth century. The
idea that the Sun was subject to this decline was said to have had
an impact almost as great as the theories of Darwin. Occult ideas
grew up to counter this dying outer sun with the promise of internal
light, underground worlds and secret powers. The key text was Bulwer
Lytton's novel The Coming Race, the prototype for endless science-fiction
fantasies and horrid Master-race ideas ever since.
Yes, here is the essay I read, cached on Google, I can't connect to the
original:
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cach..._forms.htm+Lytton+vril+entropy&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
excerpt:
"By 1862 John Ruskin had confided to a correspondent, “I want to believe in Apollo—but can't—the sun is said to be getting rusty (is it not?).”__ Ruskin may have been reacting to one of thermodynamicist William Thomson’s popular articles on solar physics published earlier that year, “On the Age of the Sun's Heat,” stating that the authority of physics granted to the sun’s prior existence far less time than was posited by Darwin's spacious chronologies of natural evolution._ Thomson’s best estimate of the age of the sun was somewhere between ten and one hundred million years._ His conclusion was that, “As for the future, we may say, with equal certainty, that inhabitants of the earth cannot continue to enjoy the light and heat essential to their life, for many million years longer, unless sources now unknown to us are prepared in the great storehouse of creation.”
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2002
- Messages
- 36,492
- Location
- East of Suez
I've read around the subject a little myself James. Kelvin's formulation of the laws of thermodynamics really feeds into that whole fin d'siecle pessimism thing. Whereas the Greeks and the Romans, for all their achievements, understood the ephemeracy of their works on earth (as opposed to the unbounded heavens) the British in particular really missed this and started getting delusions of grandeur and missed the Ozyimandian warning. Hence, it was bad enough for their great scientific method to tell them that it must all eventually come to an end, but worse still that assuming the sun to be a giant burning coal they could put an approximate date on its occurence! One of the great literary descriptions of the heat death of the universe has to be H.G. Well's The Time Machine (oft-quoted on this board). There's a great description of the travellers journey to the far flung future where a cooling hazy red sun looms large in the cold sky. Great stuff. 
A
Anonymous
Guest
Any link between the third riech and thermol dynamics is extremely tenuious. Infact if one studies the fanomana I believe such an asertion will be found to be completely fictional.
Nazisim was a front for the thule socielty. It itself was a occult front for the catholic rcognised Tutonic Knights. If one studies there 1000 year development there origins are clear. Firstly the the Tutonic knights were a Germanic rection to the Franco centralized Knights Templer. Secondly the tutonic knights were created to keep alive the ethos of Germanic Barbarian expansionism. Get your facts strait.
Thermol dynamics are based on the study of the energy relationships with in the steam engine. Thermol Dynamics underpin our understanding of physics.
The real question is how is life and evolution been alowed to so rudly disobay the laws of physics. To quote Steven Spealburge " Life finds a way"
Nazisim was a front for the thule socielty. It itself was a occult front for the catholic rcognised Tutonic Knights. If one studies there 1000 year development there origins are clear. Firstly the the Tutonic knights were a Germanic rection to the Franco centralized Knights Templer. Secondly the tutonic knights were created to keep alive the ethos of Germanic Barbarian expansionism. Get your facts strait.
Thermol dynamics are based on the study of the energy relationships with in the steam engine. Thermol Dynamics underpin our understanding of physics.
The real question is how is life and evolution been alowed to so rudly disobay the laws of physics. To quote Steven Spealburge " Life finds a way"
A
Anonymous
Guest
prometheus said:
If they didn't, the universe would have nobody to appreciate it, and it's very vain, is the universe.
A
Anonymous
Guest
What is the question?
A
Anonymous
Guest
I am sorry I was under the impression everybody knew the concept of the master race was the basis of nazim. The Nazisis used scientific concepts taken completely out of context and fused this with the right wing of the occult to create hell on earth.
So we do not repeat the mistakes of the past I beleive it is very important to understand how Nazisim was allowed to occur. Blameing science alown is not only misguided but dangerous.
Understanding entropy and how it relates to evolution is the key to man returning to nature. Knowledge has given us power over nature, and knowledge shall alow us to return to nature.
So we do not repeat the mistakes of the past I beleive it is very important to understand how Nazisim was allowed to occur. Blameing science alown is not only misguided but dangerous.
Understanding entropy and how it relates to evolution is the key to man returning to nature. Knowledge has given us power over nature, and knowledge shall alow us to return to nature.
A
Anonymous
Guest
i heard recently that entropy actually has more to do with levels of complexity.
the ony way i can explain it is with this analogy:
you have atoms in a container, they will continue to interact (due to their own stability) and create even more complex configurations until they reach a stable state (if they ever do)
or just run out of ways to interact.
recently i have heard a theory of universe claiming it's really just a large hologram, and that entropy has more to do with the largest amount of info. possible stored in the smallest unit of space.
i am not an expert but i have always been a little leary of the idea of entropy.
i tend to side with chaos theory, in that i think that life teeters on the line between chaos and order, and both are necessary to create and sustain anything in the universe.
i look at it as just growth.
growing always looks chaotic until you get there!
(and then you just on your way to someplace else)
just a thought.
i am also tired of people trying to turn back the clock on the theory of evolution. the world needs to read "inherit the wind",
in fact some of these people debating evolution need to read
"origin of species" for the first time!
i dont think the idea is perfect .for example i think cooperation has just a much to do with evolving as competition does, and that it's actually a balance between the two.
but dont think your going to get me to swallow that apple again,
it has too many worms in it.
randym23:miaow:
the ony way i can explain it is with this analogy:
you have atoms in a container, they will continue to interact (due to their own stability) and create even more complex configurations until they reach a stable state (if they ever do)
or just run out of ways to interact.
recently i have heard a theory of universe claiming it's really just a large hologram, and that entropy has more to do with the largest amount of info. possible stored in the smallest unit of space.
i am not an expert but i have always been a little leary of the idea of entropy.
i tend to side with chaos theory, in that i think that life teeters on the line between chaos and order, and both are necessary to create and sustain anything in the universe.
i look at it as just growth.
growing always looks chaotic until you get there!
(and then you just on your way to someplace else)
just a thought.
i am also tired of people trying to turn back the clock on the theory of evolution. the world needs to read "inherit the wind",
in fact some of these people debating evolution need to read
"origin of species" for the first time!
i dont think the idea is perfect .for example i think cooperation has just a much to do with evolving as competition does, and that it's actually a balance between the two.
but dont think your going to get me to swallow that apple again,
it has too many worms in it.
randym23:miaow:
A
Anonymous
Guest
The definition of entropy that really connects with the notion of complexity is that which comes from Boltzmanns Principle. If the number of distinct microscopic states that have the same macroscopic thermodynamic state is n, e.g. there are n ways of arranging the positions and momenta of gas molecules that give rise to the same temperature, pressure, volume, energy, etc. then the entropy, S, is given by
S=k.ln(n) ,
where ln() is the natural logarithm.
(You might be wondering how you count an apparently infinite number of microscopic states. To do it classically you have to use a "coarse graining" trick, but the finite quantisation does arise naturally if you treat everything quantum mechanically.)
It's now possible to see the connection between entropy and order. The more equivalent arrangements there are, the higher the entropy. If we compare a gas and a regular crystaline solid we can imagine that there are many more possible equivalent arrangements of the gas molecules, than there are arrangements of atoms or molecules within a crystal. In a gas, the molecules can be pretty much anywhere, doing "their own thing", whereas in a crystal the atoms are confined to being located at the points on the crystal lattice.
Similarly, one can see that a gas with many equivalent states, is more complex than a regular crystalline solid, as you need far fewer parameters to specify the locations of the atoms in the crystal, than you do for atoms in the gas.
This has probably skimmed over a few of the subtlties, but I hope that it has captured a flavour of what is going on.
S=k.ln(n) ,
where ln() is the natural logarithm.
(You might be wondering how you count an apparently infinite number of microscopic states. To do it classically you have to use a "coarse graining" trick, but the finite quantisation does arise naturally if you treat everything quantum mechanically.)
It's now possible to see the connection between entropy and order. The more equivalent arrangements there are, the higher the entropy. If we compare a gas and a regular crystaline solid we can imagine that there are many more possible equivalent arrangements of the gas molecules, than there are arrangements of atoms or molecules within a crystal. In a gas, the molecules can be pretty much anywhere, doing "their own thing", whereas in a crystal the atoms are confined to being located at the points on the crystal lattice.
Similarly, one can see that a gas with many equivalent states, is more complex than a regular crystalline solid, as you need far fewer parameters to specify the locations of the atoms in the crystal, than you do for atoms in the gas.
This has probably skimmed over a few of the subtlties, but I hope that it has captured a flavour of what is going on.