Policy asked to investigate entropy-claim in website of Turku University in Finland
Kari Tikkanen
2007.
(Following are partly my words: The paper says some-one, doesn't say
"creationist" but we know he is creationist..).
A Finnish creationist has asked police to inquiry website. There is
"unscientific claim" about entropy that creationist claim is againt
university law.
(We know the creationist: his name is Raimo Lonka).
According to website (Tuorla website, Unic of Turku) extra energy from
sun decreases entropy on earth. Creationist claim that extra energy
from sun increases entropy on earth. Professor Mauri Valtonen from
Tuorla Observatory comments that
-"we'd need internationial Nobel-level researcher committee to solve
entropy. So if police could do it, then it would be really great
scientific achievement."
Kari Tikkanen
Headline should be :
"Police has been asked to investigate.. "
Sorry numerous misspells that seemed to increase after quite bad flu
that I had for weeks..
John Vreeland
opined:
This was amusing, but I feel guilty laughing at the stupidity of my
fellow human beings.
Then again, I wish people like Lonka would wear a warning sign:
"DANGER HIGH STUPIDITY"
--
Two Creation Scientists can hold an intelligent conversation, if one of them is a sock puppet.
---John Vreeland(IEEE.org)
Craig T
The Universe is violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics! Someone call
the police!
Perplexed in Peoria
"John Vreeland" <vree...@snotmail.com> wrote in message news:vvrk03tsgh2sjadh0...@4ax.com...
> On 28 Mar 2007 05:42:07 -0700, "Kari Tikkanen" <ktik...@gmail.com>
> opined:
>
> >Finnish Newspaper Turun Sanomat has an article about it on 27 March
> >2007.
> >
> >(Following are partly my words: The paper says some-one, doesn't say
> >"creationist" but we know he is creationist..).
> >A Finnish creationist has asked police to inquiry website. There is
> >"unscientific claim" about entropy that creationist claim is againt
> >university law.
> >(We know the creationist: his name is Raimo Lonka).
> >According to website (Tuorla website, Unic of Turku) extra energy from
> >sun decreases entropy on earth. Creationist claim that extra energy
> >from sun increases entropy on earth. Professor Mauri Valtonen from
> >Tuorla Observatory comments that
> >-"we'd need internationial Nobel-level researcher committee to solve
> >entropy. So if police could do it, then it would be really great
> >scientific achievement."
>
> This was amusing, but I feel guilty laughing at the stupidity of my
> fellow human beings.
>
> Then again, I wish people like Lonka would wear a warning sign:
> "DANGER HIGH STUPIDITY"
Well, if the quoting of the claim on the website is correct, and if the
quote from Professor Valtonen is accurate, maybe all Finns should wear
the warning sign. Because the way thermodynamics is used by US chemists
and engineers, energy from the sun DOES increase entropy on Earth. And
we don't need international Nobel-level researcher committees to do
the math for us. Nor assistance in our enquiries from the police.
Cemtech
craig...@fortbend.k12.tx.us says...
/playmusic = C:\PinkPanthertheme.mp3
--
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
Mark Iredell
The sun radiates Earth with high-energy photons, while Earth in turn
radiates to space with low-energy photons. Earth's net energy change
through this process is zero (neglecting the small amount of heating
coming from the Earth's core), but the net entropy change is NEGATIVE.
That is, the net radiative effect of the sun truly DECREASES the
Earth's entropy. As we know, the biosphere makes good use of this
source of negative entropy.
Furthermore, the sun shines mainly in the tropics where it's already
hot. This further decreases entropy. I can't say if the biosphere uses
this extra source of negative entropy, but the atmosphere sure does.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Mark Iredell" <im....@cox.net> wrote in message news:1175132372.3...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
You are using rather creative 'accounting rules' to reach this conclusion.
For example, the idea that those low-energy photons which the Earth radiates
to space at night should be counted as something that the sun does to Earth.
Your rationale seems to be that (in order to be fair) we need to analyze
a steady state system. Ok, if that is the approach you wish to take, I
would ask just how long you think the Earth has been in a steady state with
its entropy decreasing.
> Furthermore, the sun shines mainly in the tropics where it's already
> hot. This further decreases entropy. I can't say if the biosphere uses
> this extra source of negative entropy, but the atmosphere sure does.
Ok, that almost makes some sense. Your accounting rules now have the sun
pouring photons on the hot tropics, and the cold polar regions radiating
the same total amount of heat (at lower temperature) to space. And the
negentropy drives convection - palpable work is being done. Ok, but
then you are apparently not accounting for the entropy generated by
the frictional resistance to the convection.
So your position seems to be that by choosing the accounting rules cleverly,
we can say anything we want about thermodynamics. Gee, don't tell the
creationists about this! They might get ideas. And use this creative
accounting dishonestly!
Desertphile
Wow.
Just.... wow.
Like... I'm, well, speechless at such insanity. I hope Lonka sees
a doctor and gets rid of whatever is making him delusional.
Also, I hope the police arrest gravity for always sucking.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
Ernest Major
in Peoria <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> writes
neglecting internal heat production in the Earth and the like, the
entropy of the Earth is approximately constant. Low entropy energy is
imported from the sun, and high entropy energy exported to outer space,
supporting a dynamic equilibrium of nearly constant entropy. (There is
an annual variation in atmosphere variation, corresponding, inversely,
to an annual variation in plant biomass; one suspects that there is a
corresponding annual variation in entropy.)
--
alias Ernest Major
Robert Carnegie
> In message <HRFOh.10126$JZ3.6...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, Perplexed
> in Peoria <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Mark Iredell" <im.b...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:1175132372.3...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> >> >news:vvrk03tsgh2sjadh0...@4ax.com...
> >> > > On 28 Mar 2007 05:42:07 -0700, "Kari Tikkanen" <ktikk...@gmail.com>
Let's say seasonal. There are two winters and two summers each year.
Let's be more precise about other language, too. From Earth this time
last year to Earth now, I'll take a guess that any overall change in
entropy is way less than the sum of the micro-events in which entropy
micro-locally increased, such as when you digested a meal. (I also
should consider that we're burning a bunch of fossil fuel and not
replacing it.) Is it wrong to say that the Sun makes a contribution
to the entropy situation, acting to decrease it? The majority of
times that a photon lands here? (Exceptions may include photons that
happen to hit ice and cause it to warm up and melt.)
I'm not sure how the police get involved in a case of someone putting
plain nonsense on a university Web site. I would expect it to be a
civil matter.
Ernest Major
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes
>> If you'll pardon me offering a 3rd alternative, it seems to me that,
>> neglecting internal heat production in the Earth and the like, the
>> entropy of the Earth is approximately constant. Low entropy energy is
>> imported from the sun, and high entropy energy exported to outer space,
>> supporting a dynamic equilibrium of nearly constant entropy. (There is
>> an annual variation in atmosphere variation, corresponding, inversely,
>> to an annual variation in plant biomass; one suspects that there is a
>> corresponding annual variation in entropy.)
>
>Let's say seasonal. There are two winters and two summers each year.
The observed variation is annual; the northern hemisphere is more
productive than the southern hemisphere, due to the relative paucity of
unfrozen land in the southern hemisphere.
--
alias Ernest Major
John Wilkins
Yeah, I noticed that too....
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Perplexed in Peoria
"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:sdR8vVQ6...@meden.invalid...
Agree. If that sounds to you like a third alternative, then I have to
apologize for being unclear.
Mark Iredell
> "Mark Iredell" <im....@cox.net> wrote in message news:1175132372.3...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> > >
> >
> > The sun radiates Earth with high-energy photons, while Earth in turn
> > radiates to space with low-energy photons. Earth's net energy change
> > through this process is zero (neglecting the small amount of heating
> > coming from the Earth's core), but the net entropy change is NEGATIVE.
> > That is, the net radiative effect of the sun truly DECREASES the
> > Earth's entropy. As we know, the biosphere makes good use of this
> > source of negative entropy.
>
> You are using rather creative 'accounting rules' to reach this conclusion.
> For example, the idea that those low-energy photons which the Earth radiates
> to space at night should be counted as something that the sun does to Earth.
It's simplest to look at the problem from the point of view of space.
Consider just the closed sun-Earth-space system. The presence of the
warm Earth robs cold space of high-energy photons in exchange for low-
energy photons.
> Your rationale seems to be that (in order to be fair) we need to analyze
> a steady state system. Ok, if that is the approach you wish to take, I
> would ask just how long you think the Earth has been in a steady state with
> its entropy decreasing.
Entropy is only conserved under reversible processes. Low entropy is
continually eroded on Earth by irreversible processes, such as life.
> > Furthermore, the sun shines mainly in the tropics where it's already
> > hot. This further decreases entropy. I can't say if the biosphere uses
> > this extra source of negative entropy, but the atmosphere sure does.
>
> Ok, that almost makes some sense. Your accounting rules now have the sun
> pouring photons on the hot tropics, and the cold polar regions radiating
> the same total amount of heat (at lower temperature) to space. And the
> negentropy drives convection - palpable work is being done. Ok, but
> then you are apparently not accounting for the entropy generated by
> the frictional resistance to the convection.
>
> So your position seems to be that by choosing the accounting rules cleverly,
> we can say anything we want about thermodynamics. Gee, don't tell the
> creationists about this! They might get ideas. And use this creative
> accounting dishonestly!
I don't think considering just the closed sun-Earth-space system is
arbitrary. I think it's the simplest way to look at the problem.
Friar Broccoli
>>> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>>>> ...energy from the sun DOES increase entropy on Earth....
>>> The sun radiates Earth with high-energy photons, while Earth in turn
>>> radiates to space with low-energy photons. Earth's net energy change
>>> through this process is zero (neglecting the small amount of heating
>>> coming from the Earth's core), but the net entropy change is NEGATIVE.
>>> That is, the net radiative effect of the sun truly DECREASES the
>>> Earth's entropy. As we know, the biosphere makes good use of this
>>> source of negative entropy.
>> You are using rather creative 'accounting rules' to reach
>> this conclusion. For example, the idea that those low-energy
>> photons which the Earth radiates to space at night should be
>> counted as something that the sun does to Earth.
> It's simplest to look at the problem from the point of view of space.
> Consider just the closed sun-Earth-space system. The presence of the
> warm Earth robs cold space of high-energy photons in exchange for low-
> energy photons.
First accusations of misrepresentation, and now robbery. And
all this in a closed system, no doubt a violation of anti-trust
laws. Clearly a police matter.
Everybody move along now.
Mark Iredell
First Law violation: Neo-Conservativism
Second Law violation: New World Order
Perplexed in Peoria
"Mark Iredell" <im....@cox.net> wrote in message news:1175210569....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
[2nd repost- damn SBC/ATT to hell!]
It is not an absurd way to look at the problem - depending on what problem
you are looking at. Suppose you see the problem this way: We notice a
number of dissipative processes on Earth, including the hydrological cycle,
atmospheric circulation, and green plant growth and decay. These processes
produce entropy, yet the entropy of the Earth does not seem to be increasing -
we are not approaching equilibrium - we remain in a rough steady state far from
equilibrium. What is the explanation? What is the source of negative entropy?
If this is the question you are asking, then the correct answer is indeed that
we are emitting high entropy photons to space while replacing the energy lost
by absorbing low entropy photons from the sun. (Lower entropy because there
are fewer of them - not lower entropy per photon, but lower entropy per joule).
An entirely correct analysis. But it remains the case that each photon we
receive from the sun *increases* the entropy of the Earth. And that was the
entirely correct point of the entirely stupid creationist who called in the
cops. And then the university spokesman showed himself to be even stupider by
saying that analyzing the thermodynamics of this situation is a Nobel-prize
level research topic. If it is so damned difficult, why are they claiming
they have the answers on a web site?
I feel better now that I have that flame out of my system. ;-)
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
> "Mark Iredell" <im.b...@cox.net> wrote in messagenews:1175210569....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>>> "Mark Iredell" <im.b...@cox.net> wrote in messagenews:1175132372.3...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
Well, I'm confused, which is what normally happens every time
this issue is raised. I'll make a guess about what you mean
and you can tell me how close I am to correct:
- Energy from the sun increases the entropy on earth.
- The less usable energy from earth increases entropy of space
even more.
Therefore subract entropy_received_from_sun from
entropy_going_to_space_from_earth and entropy on earth is
decreased. That is the source of negative entropy on earth.
Assuming the above is what you meant, I have a different take
on this entire issue, which is normally met with a deafening
silence each time I raise it, so I will present it again here
in the hope that it will prevent you from replying to (and
thus criticizing) my comments above.
In my view the fundamental source of negative entropy in our
universe is gravity. Basically I think that gravity has a
different opinion about what entropy is than do the other
forces. So gravity is forcing matter in planets and stars etc.
into a state of lower entropy from the point of view of the
weak, strong and electromagnetic forces.
> And that was the entirely correct point of the entirely stupid
> creationist who called in the cops. And then the university
> spokesman showed himself to be even stupider by saying that
> analyzing the thermodynamics of this situation is a
> Nobel-prize level research topic. If it is so damned
> difficult, why are they claiming they have the answers on a
> web site?
For the same reason AIG has an explanation for coal mines on
its site.
> I feel better now that I have that flame out of my system. ;-)
Hopefully this will add order to your thinking.
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
Robert Carnegie
> it remains the case that each photon we
> receive from the sun *increases* the entropy of the Earth. And that was the
> entirely correct point of the entirely stupid creationist who called in the
> cops. And then the university spokesman showed himself to be even stupider by
> saying that analyzing the thermodynamics of this situation is a Nobel-prize
> level research topic.
It hasn't been explained simply enough for me that "each photon we
receive from the sun *increases* the entropy of the Earth". You
referred before to entropy-as-used-by-chemists, presumably distinct
from entropy-as-used-by-physicists, but beyond that I am not getting
it.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message news:1175441129.4...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
No, I'm not making a distinction between the usage of chemists and physicists.
And I'm not going to provide a tutorial on entropy here. I simply claim
that when the Earth receives a photon, it's entropy increases. That this
is inherent in commonly understood thermodynamics. If someone who understands
thermodynamics better than I wishes to correct me, please do.
But my position clearly follows from dS = dQ/T. Because the photon is a
carrier of positive dQ, and T is positive.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1175437002....@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 29, 11:14 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> > "Mark Iredell" <im.b...@cox.net> wrote in messagenews:1175210569....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
[repost - damn SBC/ATT]
Yes. Assuming that you balance the energy from the sun with the
energy re-radiated, you cannot simultaneously balance the entropy
received with the entropy re-radiated. At least not without taking
into account some dissipative processes local to the Earth which
themselves generate some entropy.
> Assuming the above is what you meant, I have a different take
> on this entire issue, which is normally met with a deafening
> silence each time I raise it, so I will present it again here
> in the hope that it will prevent you from replying to (and
> thus criticizing) my comments above.
>
> In my view the fundamental source of negative entropy in our
> universe is gravity. Basically I think that gravity has a
> different opinion about what entropy is than do the other
> forces. So gravity is forcing matter in planets and stars etc.
> into a state of lower entropy from the point of view of the
> weak, strong and electromagnetic forces.
Gravitation certainly confuses things. Particularly if general
relativity is involved - I'm sure you are familiar with the Hawking/
Bekenstein controversy regarding the entropy of black holes. I am
far from an expert on such matters.
But, ISTM that if we stick to Newtonian gravitation, then there is
nothing thermodynamically odd about gravitation. If gravitation collects
a bunch of scattered hydrogen atoms into compact stars - thus decreasing
the average entropy of those hydrogen atoms - it does so only by causing
the radiation of lots of photons into the void, thus resulting in increased
entropy for the universe as a whole. And then, if the stellar hydrogen
is turned into stellar helium (decreasing entropy for the nucleons), this
requires the radiation of lots of photons and neutrinos - again raising
global entropy.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Consider just the closed sun-Earth-space system.
There is no such "closed system". Think about it.
If that doesn't work, go out on a clear night and
take a look.
xanthian.
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
> "Friar Broccoli" <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1175437002....@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> Gravitation certainly confuses things.
For me gravity clarifies things wonderfully. Without it the
evolution of our universe is close to a paradox. We start out
with a dispersed gas cloud (almost the definition of high
entropy) and end up with planets and suns organized into solar
systems galaxies, galaxy clusters, and sheets of galaxy
clusters. Thus the universe appears to be going backward
toward decreased entropy.
But when you add in gravity trying to achieve its particular
brand of entropy, then everything seems to make sense ... to me
anyway.
> Particularly if general relativity is involved
Well I know that the expansion of the universe is causing a
loss of energy, which is somewhat related to relativity, but
aside from that I cannot think of how relativity could cause
problems for entropy. Even a hint about what you are
considering would be appreciated.
> - I'm sure you are familiar with the Hawking/
> Bekenstein controversy regarding the entropy of black holes.
Never heard of it, but without even so much as a google, let me
guess that Hawking thinks entropy is near infinite and
Bekenstein that it's near zero. I'll put my money on
Bekenstein. (Yes I know this makes little or no sense in the
context of the rest of my position.)
> I am far from an expert on such matters.
Would a Nobel committee of physicists help here?
> But, ISTM that if we stick to Newtonian gravitation, then
> there is nothing thermodynamically odd about gravitation. If
> gravitation collects a bunch of scattered hydrogen atoms into
> compact stars - thus decreasing the average entropy of those
> hydrogen atoms - it does so only by causing the radiation of
> lots of photons into the void, thus resulting in increased
> entropy for the universe as a whole. And then, if the stellar
> hydrogen is turned into stellar helium (decreasing entropy for
> the nucleons), this requires the radiation of lots of photons
> and neutrinos - again raising global entropy.
Yes, this is pretty much how I see things. Thanks for
clarifying that heavy elements have lower entropy. I didn't
know that, even though it is intuitively obvious. (Intuition
frequently fails me when thinking about entropy)
Still curious about why/how relativity causes problems.
Friar Broccoli
> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>> it remains the case that each photon we receive from the sun
>> *increases* the entropy of the Earth. And that was the
>> entirely correct point of the entirely stupid creationist who
>> called in the cops. And then the university spokesman showed
>> himself to be even stupider by saying that analyzing the
>> thermodynamics of this situation is a Nobel-prize level
>> research topic.
> It hasn't been explained simply enough for me that "each
> photon we receive from the sun *increases* the entropy of the
> Earth".
I am certainly willing to provide a simple (and probably wrong
too) explanation of this.
To keep things simple, imagine that everything of importance
occurs exclusively in the atmosphere. Now imagine that the
atmosphere is in a bottle (which in a way it is). If the
atmosphere was at zero entropy it would be lying at the bottom
of the bottle as a rectangle (or maybe as a platonic chair).
From now on every time a photon hits the chair energy is added,
increasing the entropy of the chair until it finally decays
into a cloud of gas. If you add more energy to the gas, entropy
*increases* even more.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1175477112....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Er. As I understand the theory of the Big Bang, we didn't start out
very dispersed.
> and end up with planets and suns organized into solar
> systems galaxies, galaxy clusters, and sheets of galaxy
> clusters. Thus the universe appears to be going backward
> toward decreased entropy.
Except that it is expanding, thus increasing entropy even more.
> But when you add in gravity trying to achieve its particular
> brand of entropy, then everything seems to make sense ... to me
> anyway.
Well, if you understand thermodynamics better by inventing your own
private version, today is as good a day as any to publicize it.
> > Particularly if general relativity is involved
>
> Well I know that the expansion of the universe is causing a
> loss of energy, which is somewhat related to relativity, but
> aside from that I cannot think of how relativity could cause
> problems for entropy. Even a hint about what you are
> considering would be appreciated.
>
> > - I'm sure you are familiar with the Hawking/
> > Bekenstein controversy regarding the entropy of black holes.
>
> Never heard of it, but without even so much as a google, let me
> guess that Hawking thinks entropy is near infinite and
> Bekenstein that it's near zero. I'll put my money on
> Bekenstein. (Yes I know this makes little or no sense in the
> context of the rest of my position.)
Hawking (and most physicists) thought black holes violated the 2nd
Law. Bekenstein disagreed. Hawking set out to prove Bekenstein wrong
and discovered he was actually right. For a weird reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_thermodynamics
> > I am far from an expert on such matters.
>
> Would a Nobel committee of physicists help here?
Well, I think Bardeen has a Nobel. Hawking doesn't. But people buy
his books and pretend to read them, so that is almost as good.
Whoops. Wrong John Bardeen. Bardeen Jr. did the black hole thermo
work. Bardeen Sr. won the Nobel.
> > But, ISTM that if we stick to Newtonian gravitation, then
> > there is nothing thermodynamically odd about gravitation. If
> > gravitation collects a bunch of scattered hydrogen atoms into
> > compact stars - thus decreasing the average entropy of those
> > hydrogen atoms - it does so only by causing the radiation of
> > lots of photons into the void, thus resulting in increased
> > entropy for the universe as a whole. And then, if the stellar
> > hydrogen is turned into stellar helium (decreasing entropy for
> > the nucleons), this requires the radiation of lots of photons
> > and neutrinos - again raising global entropy.
>
> Yes, this is pretty much how I see things. Thanks for
> clarifying that heavy elements have lower entropy. I didn't
> know that, even though it is intuitively obvious. (Intuition
> frequently fails me when thinking about entropy)
>
> Still curious about why/how relativity causes problems.
Black hole relativity causes problems for reasons discussed in the
Wiki article. Cosmological relativity causes problems because of
the change in the volume of the universe. To say nothing of the
question of whether work is being done as the universe expands.
To say even less about the infamous cosmological constant and whether
it changes over time. And I haven't even mentioned the "time's arrow"
problem, and may never do so. But Penrose has mentioned it and will
likely continue mentioning it. He never learns.
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
> "Friar Broccoli" <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1175477112....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>> Gravitation certainly confuses things.
Making the appearance of backward movement even worse, if
gravity is not used as an explanation.
>> But when you add in gravity trying to achieve its particular
>> brand of entropy, then everything seems to make sense ... to me
>> anyway.
> Well, if you understand thermodynamics better by inventing your own
> private version, today is as good a day as any to publicize it.
?? I didn't invent this, I found some pages which outlined this
idea (that the different forces interpret entropy differently).
You can find lots of pages (using the search terms "entropy"
and "gravity") that say basically the same thing - at least
within the limits of my understanding.
I find it intuitively satisfying and not at odds with the facts
as I understand them. Actually I thought your paragraph that
began with the words "But, ISTM that if we stick to Newtonian
gravitation ..." supported this idea, by explaining it in more
detail.
>>> Particularly if general relativity is involved
>> Well I know that the expansion of the universe is causing a
>> loss of energy, which is somewhat related to relativity, but
>> aside from that I cannot think of how relativity could cause
>> problems for entropy. Even a hint about what you are
>> considering would be appreciated.
>>> - I'm sure you are familiar with the Hawking/
>>> Bekenstein controversy regarding the entropy of black holes.
>> Never heard of it, but without even so much as a google, let me
>> guess that Hawking thinks entropy is near infinite and
>> Bekenstein that it's near zero. I'll put my money on
>> Bekenstein. (Yes I know this makes little or no sense in the
>> context of the rest of my position.)
> Hawking (and most physicists) thought black holes violated the 2nd
> Law. Bekenstein disagreed. Hawking set out to prove Bekenstein wrong
> and discovered he was actually right. For a weird reason.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_thermodynamics
I apologize for making you find a link on this. I spent 5
hours bike riding yesterday (first step toward loosing the 20
lbs I gained this winter) and was feeling very parasitic.
A step forward?
> But Penrose has mentioned it and will
> likely continue mentioning it. He never learns.
Seems he too is being pulled backward.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1175534194.7...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 1, 10:01 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> > "Friar Broccoli" <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1175477112....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Apr 1, 1:19 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>> "Friar Broccoli" <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1175437002....@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> universe is gravity. Basically I think that gravity has a
> >>>> different opinion about what entropy is than do the other
> >>>> forces. So gravity is forcing matter in planets and stars etc.
> >>>> into a state of lower entropy from the point of view of the
> >>>> weak, strong and electromagnetic forces.
>
> >>> Gravitation certainly confuses things.
>
> >> For me gravity clarifies things wonderfully. Without it the
> >> evolution of our universe is close to a paradox. We start out
> >> with a dispersed gas cloud (almost the definition of high
> >> entropy)
>
> > Er. As I understand the theory of the Big Bang, we didn't start out
> > very dispersed.
>
> >> and end up with planets and suns organized into solar
> >> systems galaxies, galaxy clusters, and sheets of galaxy
> >> clusters. Thus the universe appears to be going backward
> >> toward decreased entropy.
>
> > Except that it is expanding, thus increasing entropy even more.
>
> Making the appearance of backward movement even worse, if
> gravity is not used as an explanation.
Maybe I am just not looking at it right (or wrong, or whatever) because
I just don't see why gravitation seems special to you - 2LOT-wise.
What gravitation does to a cloud of gas is to condense it - Ok, that is
a decrease in entropy if you don't consider the increase in the temperature
of the gas and the resulting radiation of heat. And, of course, if you
do consider these things, then 2LOT is upheld.
But this is quite analogous to what happens when a supersaturated solution
crystalizes, or when cement or epoxy cures, or in any number of other
spontaneous exothermic processes.
But let us look again at what you originally wrote:
"In my view the fundamental source of negative entropy in our
universe is gravity."
Hmmm. We notice clumps of relatively low entropy. Things like planets
and crystals and solidified glasses. How did this happen? Aha! There
was an exothermic reaction, and then the heat was radiated away. There
are lots of exothermic reactions available, but the one which created the
biggest clumps of relatively low entropy is the reaction called gravitational
collapse.
So, if that is what you meant, then I agree with you.
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
> "Friar Broccoli" <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1175534194.7...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Gravitation certainly confuses things.
Odd, because I thought you did a very good job of explaining it
in your comment below.
Note that my main practical interest is in being able to
provide creationists with a clear, simple, and intuitively
obvious response to the "life is a violation of 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics (2LOT)" argument. Saying that energy from the
sun is a source of negative entropy really doesn't work, since
it isn't complete and just drives the problem back one step.
So being able to say that gravity is responsible for the
back-eddies in the flow entropy (and explain why) is, I find,
useful.
> What gravitation does to a cloud of gas is to condense it - Ok, that is
> a decrease in entropy if you don't consider the increase in the temperature
> of the gas and the resulting radiation of heat. And, of course, if you
> do consider these things, then 2LOT is upheld.
> But this is quite analogous to what happens when a supersaturated solution
> crystalizes, or when cement or epoxy cures, or in any number of other
> spontaneous exothermic processes.
> But let us look again at what you originally wrote:
> "In my view the fundamental source of negative entropy in our
> universe is gravity."
> Hmmm. We notice clumps of relatively low entropy. Things like planets
> and crystals and solidified glasses. How did this happen? Aha! There
> was an exothermic reaction, and then the heat was radiated away. There
> are lots of exothermic reactions available, but the one which created the
> biggest clumps of relatively low entropy is the reaction called gravitational
> collapse.
> So, if that is what you meant, then I agree with you.
I cannot say that I meant this, because until you explained
them I didn't know the balancing mechanisms that cause overall
entropy to be maintained.
Going a bit further, it seems to me that this paradox (for me)
has another layer ready to be peeled away. When quoting my
original comment, I note that you removed my comments
suggesting that gravity defines entropy differently than the
electromagnetic (EM) force.
Given that the 2nd LOT was developed exclusively within an EM
context, it occurs to me that it is entirely meaningless to
describe gravity as having entropic characteristics. Do you
know something about this, or have an opinion on it?
Ernest Major
Broccoli <Eli...@gmail.com> writes
While I don't claim expertise on the history of the theory of
thermodynamics, the claim that the 2LOT "was developed exclusively
within an EM context" doesn't sound right. The roots of thermodynamics,
IIRC, lie on the one hand with steam engines (and more abstractly with
the properties of gases) and on the other hand with chemistry.
>
> Cordially;
>
> Friar Broccoli
> Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
> Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
>
> --------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
>
--
Alias Ernest Major
Perplexed in Peoria
"Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1175620430....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Because, to my way of thinking, (Newtonian) gravitation doesn't do anything
special regarding the 2LOT. The 2LOT arises from more basic aspects of
mechanics (the conservation laws, maybe) and basic probability theory. It
should apply regardless of the shape of the force laws between particles.
> Given that the 2nd LOT was developed exclusively within an EM
> context, it occurs to me that it is entirely meaningless to
> describe gravity as having entropic characteristics. Do you
> know something about this, or have an opinion on it?
Newtonian gravitation is nothing special wrt 2LOT. Relativistic gravitation
may require some subtlety to restore 2LOT to universal applicability, as
shown in Hawkings black hole work, but I have no real understanding of
this stuff.
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
> "Friar Broccoli" <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1175620430....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> Gravitation certainly confuses things.
I do not (or at least do not think I need to - for present
purposes) disagree with this. I am only trying to address the
question of how the back-eddies arise: ie. How is it that we
find a lot of order concentrated here, and an excess of entropy
off over there somewhere.
For this the varying shapes of the force laws between the
particles is critical. Electro-magnetism seems happiest
(entropically) when ordinary electron coated particles are
spread out as an ideal gas, but is over-ruled by gravity which
is entropically happiest when everything is clumped together.
It seems to me that this is simple, obvious and uncontroversial.
I am puzzled about why I cannot convey this to others, or
alternatively come to see the error of my ways.
>> Given that the 2nd LOT was developed exclusively within an EM
>> context, it occurs to me that it is entirely meaningless to
>> describe gravity as having entropic characteristics. Do you
>> know something about this, or have an opinion on it?
> Newtonian gravitation is nothing special wrt 2LOT. Relativistic gravitation
> may require some subtlety to restore 2LOT to universal applicability, as
> shown in Hawkings black hole work, but I have no real understanding of
> this stuff.
Well, obviously, I don't either. But I don't think it has the
slightest relevance to the point I am trying to make.
Friar Broccoli
> In message <1175620430.093442.8...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Friar
> Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> writes
>>>>>>> Gravitation certainly confuses things.
I've turned around on this question several times during the
last few days. Now I think my statement was pretty much
correct within the framework in which it was made: ie. without
considering physical reality at its most fundamental level.
What is, I believe, clear is that heat transfer is an
electromagnetic (EM) phenomenon, although I'll grant that if we
look closely at the mediating particle motion this could
quickly fall apart, but the folks responsible for developing
the LOTs where completely unaware of any links between
acceleration and gravity, or energy and mass, so could not have
been considering them.
Describing chemistry as anything but a pure EM phenomenon,
would I think be stretching our ordinary understanding of
reality beyond the breaking point. It is almost entirely about
charges between particles and groups of particles.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1176310384....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 3, 3:13 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> > "Friar Broccoli" <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1175620430....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Apr 2, 9:00 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
All I can do is to repeat what I have already said. Perhaps saying it in
different words will create some resonance for you.
Electro-magnetism is not 'happiest' with neutral atoms spread out as an
ideal gas. Whether you get a high-entropy gas or a lower-entropy liquid
or a low-entropy solid is going to depend upon details of density and
temperature. Entropy and enthalpy are, in a sense, competing 'forces'
trying to shape reality in a closed (exchange of energy, but not matter)
system.
In an isolated system (no exchange of either matter or energy), you might say
that entropy always wins. Entropy is maximized. Period. But in a closed
system, things are more complicated. Entropy can be radiated away as heat,
or it can be retained in the system. Entropy *within* the closed system is
no longer maximized. Instead, Gibbs (or Helmholtz) free energy is minimized.
(The difference between the two has to do with whether the closed system
under consideration has constant volume. I'm not going to get into these
technicalities).
Free energy can be defined by
delta_G == delta_H - T * delta_S
Entropy (delta_S) and enthalpy (delta_H) are in opposition in determining
what happens (delta_G). Enthalpy wants to turn gasses into liquids and
liquids into solids. This is true whether we are talking about gravitation,
electromagnetism, or nuclear forces of adhesion. Entropy wants everything
to spread out.
Now, it is true that the way this plays out usually involves what you have
called 'back-eddies'. And it is also true that the different forces of
nature create back-eddies of different scales. The nuclear enthalpy forces
create back-eddies on the scale of atomic nuclei, in which nuclear attraction
overwhelms both entropy and electromagnetism. The electromagnetic enthalpy
forces were able to put together small globules of iron and nickel in the
solar nebula. If they had not succeeded in overcoming entropy to this extent,
the planets would never have formed. Both electromagnetism and nuclear forces
are quite capable of creating back-eddies, but on a fairly small scale. And
of course, gravitation has created back-eddies on a larger scale.
I'll leave it to people better at physics to penetrate to the heart of the
question of why the inverse-square force of gravity is the only true long-range
force, and why electromagnetism, in practice, is short-range even though it
too is nominally inverse-square. And I don't even understand the ultra-short
range of the nuclear forces. But I am pretty confident of the thermodynamics
of the situation. All three forces contribute to the delta_H term - all in
essentially the same way. There is nothing special about gravitation in this
regard. In closed (not isolated) systems, entropy and enthalpy are in opposition.
On fairly small spatial scales, enthalpy wins (with the relevant scale depending
on the nature of the forces generating the enthalpy). But on large scales,
entropy wins against nuclear and electromagnetism, and seems to have achieved
at least a draw with gravitation. And it may be that on the very largest scale
entropy wins even against gravitation. The universe is still expanding, after
all.
Ernest Major
Friar Broccoli <Eli...@gmail.com> writes
You wrote that "was developed exclusively within an EM context". Now you
can argue the chemistry lies within an EM context, in that chemistry
depends on electrical interactions. But to say that thermodynamics was
developed exclusively within an EM context would be to commit an
anachronism; when thermodynamics was developed people didn't know that
chemistry depended on electrical interactions. (IIRC, thermodynamics
even predates atomic theory.) You could equally well have written that
thermodynamics was developed exclusively within a QM context, as
chemistry, at its base, depends on the quantum mechanics of valence
electrons, in which case the anachronism is more pointed.
On the other hand it can be argued that describing chemistry as solely a
pure EM phenomenon is inaccurate; by doing so you are excluding the role
of thermodynamics in chemistry.
Anyway it is incorrect to claim that thermodynamics only applies in an
EM context, and doesn't apply to other interactions. IIRC, PiP has
already explained this adequately. (It seems that you have fallen into a
non-sequitur fallacy - in this case "thermodynamics was developed in a
(with the benefit of hindsight) an EM context (more accurately, I think,
a context in which EM interactions dominate), therefore it doesn't apply
in gravitational contexts".)
>
> Cordially;
>
> Friar Broccoli
--
Alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
in Peoria <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> writes
>And I don't even understand the ultra-short range of the nuclear
>forces.
This may be oversimplified to the point of being wrong ...
However, forces are modelled by the exchange of virtual gauge particles
(except that no-one has managed to create a working theory of gravity
using this model). The uncertainty principle says that product of the
uncertainty in energies and time is approximately h-bar (Planck's
constant divided by 2.pi), i.e. delta-E.delta-t ~ h-bar. Therefore
energy can be "borrowed" to create a gauge particle, for a time. For
forces with massless gauge particles (i.e. EM with photons, and gravity
with gravitons) the time can be made arbitrarily long, by making the
energy of the virtual particle arbitrarily small, and therefore the
range of the force is infinite. For forces with massive gauge particles,
such as the strong and weak nuclear forces, you can't make the energy
arbitrarily small, because mass is equivalent to energy, and therefore
the range of the force is finite.
--
alias Ernest Major
Perplexed in Peoria
"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:XyhCkZfu...@meden.invalid...
Yeah, back when the exchange of virtual pions was the explanation for
the strong nuclear force, that made sense. But now, AIUI, The idea is
that you have quarks exchanging virtual gluons, and gluons are massless.
Frank Wilczek has written about this, but I didn't understand it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Wilczek
Ernest Major
example
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002PhRvD..66a3013F
In the absence of symmetry breaking gauge bosons are massless. But
symmetry breaking results in the W/Z bosons becoming massive. I had
assumed that the same was true for gluons, but while there are thousands
of Google hits for "gluon mass" I'm not having any great success at
finding any that look as if they might be intelligible without a Ph.D.
in particle physics.
--
alias Ernest Major