| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"fishfry" |
| Date: |
28 Feb 2004 10:23:16 PM |
| Object: |
2nd law of thermo disproven? |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2135779.stm
I'm not enough of a physicist to determine whether this is revolutionary
or whether the reporter just got carried away.
.
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd law of thermo disproven? |
29 Feb 2004 07:48:05 AM |
|
|
In article <BLOCKSPAMfishfry-0AAA07.20231528022004@netnews.comcast.net>,
fishfry <BLOCKSPAMfishfry@your-mailbox.com> wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2135779.stm
I'm not enough of a physicist to determine whether this is revolutionary
or whether the reporter just got carried away.
Science reporting at a major news service... hmm.. The reporter got
carried away. But let me read the article...
Ah, it's hundred year old physics. The second law -- thermodynamics in
general -- concerns macroscopic systems. At a more fundamental level, the
second law can be derived by considering the statistics of large numbers
of particles. And where there's statistics, there's standard deviations.
Thermal fluctuations have been studied for a long time. In another
thread, Meron has mentioned Brownian motion as an example of violations of
the second law; sometimes a dye particle goes faster and sometimes it goes
slower, which means sometimes it gained energy from a thermal bath without
transfering heat to a sink. Well, you won't build a car that runs
without fuel on that.
--
"There's nary an animal alive that can outrun a greased Scottsman!" --
Groundskeeper Willy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd law of thermo disproven? |
29 Feb 2004 06:30:47 AM |
|
|
fishfry <BLOCKSPAMfishfry@your-mailbox.com> wrote in message news:<BLOCKSPAMfishfry-0AAA07.20231528022004@netnews.comcast.net>...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2135779.stm
I'm not enough of a physicist to determine whether this is revolutionary
or whether the reporter just got carried away.
Search for recent threads with keywords "thermodynamics" and "fluctuation".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd law of thermo disproven? |
29 Feb 2004 09:16:56 AM |
|
|
fishfry <BLOCKSPAMfishfry@your-mailbox.com> wrote in message news:<BLOCKSPAMfishfry-0AAA07.20231528022004@netnews.comcast.net>...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2135779.stm
I'm not enough of a physicist to determine whether this is revolutionary
or whether the reporter just got carried away.
The reporter seems to have got carried away. Thermodynamics is a
macroscopic theory that was never designed to be applied to small
systems, so it comes as no surprise that it doesn't.
Regarding "entropy = disorder",
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html> should be
required reading for anyone who plans to write about entropy and the
second law of thermodynamics. It's a loose analogy at best.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd law of thermo disproven? |
29 Feb 2004 01:04:59 PM |
|
|
fishfry wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2135779.stm
I'm not enough of a physicist to determine whether this is revolutionary
or whether the reporter just got carried away.
1) The Second Law of Thermodyanimcs is statistical. "100 tiny
beads" has an inescapable error of 10 beads (sqrt(N)). This is a big
fraction for an allowed and expected spontaneous fluctuation. A mole
of stuff, 6x10^23 formula units, has an inescapable error of
7.7x10^11, which is a trivially negligible fraction.
2) Equilibrium thermodynamics is only valid for a closed systems.
The experiment in question is an open system (laser input plus
external vibratory driving).
3) Energy-rich systems far from equilibrium, with positive
feedback, spontaneously order. Consider the Belousov-Zhabotinsky
reaction. A planet accreted from a supernova shockwave - thereby
being sterile by heat and radiation - is scummed with all the
chemistry of life within a week of water condensing on its surface
(Miller, Ponnamperuma, Urey, Oparin... abiogenic synthesis). Wait a
couple of billion years and you have life arising spontaneously. Wait
five billion years and you get Edward Kennedy and Chappaquiddick.
Makes ya wonder why we even bother.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd law of thermo disproven? |
29 Feb 2004 08:05:26 AM |
|
|
fishfry wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2135779.stm
I'm not enough of a physicist to determine whether this is revolutionary
or whether the reporter just got carried away.
Reality Check: Has the Second Law Been Falsified
http://www.csicop.org/sb/2002-09/reality-check.html
Pushing the Second Law to the Limit
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/598-1.html
Critical Thinking
http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html
Tuning Up Your Crank Filters
http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Briefs/Cranks.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
