Science > Physics > Can the Second Law of Thermodynamics Be Circumvented?
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sotau17" |
| Date: |
17 Jul 2003 08:20:59 AM |
| Object: |
Can the Second Law of Thermodynamics Be Circumvented? |
Can the Second Law of Thermodynamics Be Circumvented?
By H. E. Retic ONLY E mail address is
The validity of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics seems to be
beyond question. Under the first law, the total energy content of a closed
system must remain constant. Under the second law, the availability of that
energy for useful purposes must always decrease or remain constant. In effect,
the First Law of Thermodynamics states that you can't win and the Second Law
states that, furthermore, you can't break even. The First Law of Thermodynamics
is unquestionably true, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, General
Relativity not withstanding. The Second Law of Thermodynamics stands on less
firm ground because it is a law based upon statistics. As such, it is in the
same category as an actuarial table. An insurance company can predict quite
accurately how many people will die in a given year. They cannot predict who
those people will be. Statistical laws are valid for large numbers of events;
they become less significant as the number of events is reduced. As an example,
if one patronizes a casino, he might initially win a large sum of money playing
a slot machine, but if he continues to play he not only will give all his
winnings back to the casino, he will sustain a significant loss. The question
then arises as to whether it is possible to by-pass the Second Law of
Thermodynamics though the use of nanomachines. (A nanomachine is a mechanism
whose significant dimensions are measured in nanometers, the size scale of
atoms.)
One who observes Brownian motion in a microscope might reasonably conclude
that, in principle at least, a nanomachine could be built which would bypass
the Second Law of Thermodynamics. When a liquid containing microscopic
particles is observed, the particles are seen to be in continuous (Brownian)
motion. That motion is caused by random thermal impacts between the molecules
of the liquid and the particles. If the thermal motion of water molecules can
produce a visibly observable motion in particles which are at least 10^15 times
as massive, it certainly not unreasonable to believe that suitable nanomachines
could organize the effect to produce a useful mechanical output. The postulated
nanomachines would then be able to export energy to the outside environment
that it obtained by reducing the temperature of the liquid. The exported energy
would be converted to heat and raise the temperature of the external
environment as the output performed useful work. The resultant temperature
difference between the environment and the liquid will then cause the energy
which had done useful work to flow back into the liquid to return it to its
original temperature and allows the process to continue indefinitely.
James Clark Maxwell proposed a hypothetical perpetual motion machine,
known as Maxwell's Demon, which was not proven to be theoretically unworkable
for 75 years. In that machine, Maxwell imagined that a demon controlled a
microscopic gate between two gas filled chambers. Making use of the fact that,
in a gas, the velocity of the molecules is random and that the temperature of
the gas is determined by the mean velocity of those molecules, Maxwell proposed
the concept that, if an appropriate demon existed, he could sense the speed of
molecules approaching the gate and open the gate only when a fast molecule
approached it from one side or when a slow molecule approached it from the
other side. By operating the gate in this manner, the demon would sort the
molecules so that one chamber contained fast molecules and the other chamber
contained slow molecules. Since the temperature of a gas is determined by the
mean velocity of its molecules, such a process will maintain a temperature
difference between the chambers that can be exploited to produce useful work in
a direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It took 75 years before
a rigorous proof was found which was able to show that the energy required for
Maxwell's Demon to identify the fast and slow molecules and allow the gate to
operate was at least as great as the energy that could be released and
Maxwell's Demon was shown to be an unworkable concept.
There is a modification to the concept of Maxwell's Demon for which there
is, at least as yet, no valid theoretical objection. Suppose that the two
chambers of the Maxwell's Demon example no longer rely on a demon but are
separated by a diffusion membrane having a permeability from side A to side B
which is higher than the permeability from side B to side A, as shown in the
figure shown in http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/cf153.gif . The energy
required to allow the membrane to make the decisions it needs to make in order
for it to function in this manner is available in the kinetic energy of the gas
molecules passing through it. In diffusing through the membrane, molecules can
provide the energy needed by being slowed from their average room temperature
velocity of about 1300 feet per second to a much lower exit velocity. The lower
velocity of the gas leaving the membrane means that side B is colder than the
ambient temperature. The loss of kinetic energy by the molecules as they pass
though membrane provides the energy required to operate the differential
diffusion mechanism in the membrane pores, and the membrane becomes warmer than
the ambient temperature. If the surface areas are sufficiently large, the
temperature of the gas on both sides of the membrane and of the membrane itself
must remain close to the temperature of the environment. As a result, the
pressure in chamber B will be higher than the pressure in chamber A. That
difference in pressure can be used to operate a turbine and provide useful
output power. As the gas flowing through the turbine produces output power, the
chambers are cooled below the ambient temperature and energy flows from the
environment to the chambers to replace the energy delivered by the turbine. The
arrangement would extract useful energy from its environment in direct
contradiction to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Conceptually, the membrane might be constructed with pores that were
covered by spring-loaded trapdoors, as shown in the figure
http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/cf154.gif . In this illustration, a
molecule represented by a ball approaches the right side of the membrane at a
velocity, which was appropriate to its temperature, knock the trapdoor open,
and pass through it. A similar molecule approaching the trapdoor from the left
side would bounce back and not pass through to the right side. When the
molecule on the right passed through the trapdoor, it would lose most of its
kinetic energy to the trapdoor and exit at a low velocity. As a result, the
trapdoor and the membrane would be heated and the molecule which passed though
it would be cooled. The process would generate a local temperature difference
that would quickly be equalized by any reasonable level of heat transfer.
The first theoretical objection to this type of perpetual motion machine
that the author has found in literature is that it cannot work because it
violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is hardly a valid objection
since the arrangement is specifically designed to bypass the limitations of
that law. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a statistical law and it is not
binding on nanomachinery since such mechanisms deal with molecules on an
individual basis and the pores of the assumed diffusion membranes certainly
qualify as nanomechanisms. (The Second Law of Thermodynamics, or the Law of
Entropy increase if you prefer, does apply to the membrane itself and to the
gas in the chambers since they involve large numbers of randomly interacting
particles. It does not apply to the pores of the diffusion mechanism. Each pore
is an independently acting nanomechanism and, as such, is not bound by the
Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy). The only other theoretical objection
that the author has found was provided in another book by Dr. Feynmann in which
he described a nanomechanism consisting of a riverboat type of paddle wheel
mounted on a shaft inside a cylinder containing a fluid. The paddle wheel was
bombarded by the random motion of the molecules of the fluid and caused the
shaft undergo a random rotary oscillation. To convert this motion to a useful
output, an EXTERNAL one-way ratchet was attached to the shaft. Dr. Feynmann
then demonstrated that the device would not work because the motion of the
ratchet pawl would generate enough heat so that the resultant thermal molecular
motion of the ratchet and pawl would make the pawl bounce sufficiently to
render the one way mechanism inoperative.
From the description provided, it is obvious that, while Dr. Feynmann is
undoubtedly an excellent theoretical physicist, he is not as effective as a
design engineer. Relocating the ratchet mechanism to the interior of the fluid
chamber must cool it close to the temperature of the fluid and dampen its
bounce. As a result, Dr. Feynmann's objections would vanish. When the model is
modified, Dr. Feynmann probably would be forced to agree, that unless he could
devise another objection, the concept should represent a physically realizable
device that would by-pass the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A theoretical
demonstration that the mechanism suggested by the author cannot work requires a
proof that the permeability of all possible diffusion membranes must be the
same in both directions. Deriving such a proof may be particularly difficult
because the pores of the required membrane are allowed to extract energy from
the molecules that pass though them. CONSIDERABLE EFFORT IS JUSTIFIED IN
DEVELOPING SUCH A PROOF. IF THAT PROOF CANNOT FOUND, THE POSSIBILITY OF
BUILDING A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE OF THE SECOND KIND IS NOT FOOLISH AND AN
ALL OUT EFFORT TO DEMONSTRATE IT IS JUSTIFIED. IF IT CAN BE BUILT, SOCIETY
WOULD HAVE AN INEXHAUSTIBLE A AND POLLUTION FREE SOURCE OF ENERGY THAT PROBABLY
COULD BE SIZED FOR THE SMALLEST HOMES AND THE LARGEST FACTORIES.
Please do not bombard the writer with the foolish objection that the
proposed mechanism can't work because it would violate the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, it is designed to do just that, and please don't raise the
objection that it can't work because the overall entropy of the Universe can
never be decreased. In this regard, the proposed mechanism is entropy neutral.
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm .
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE
HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST
BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
Please include any response via E-mail since the Newsgroups are not
monitored on a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same
courtesy as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our
parts, please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:-
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5 years.
In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL
PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who have
mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
.
|
|
| User: " Doug Goncz " |
|
| Title: Re: Can the Second Law of Thermodynamics Be Circumvented? |
18 Jul 2003 11:46:54 AM |
|
|
From: (Sotau17)
Can the Second Law of Thermodynamics Be Circumvented?
By H. E. Retic ONLY E mail address is
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5 years.
In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL
PRESENTED.
If I wave my ***** out the window and nobody laughs, does that mean if you are
nearby, you'll salute it?
If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
As is, it will likely dissipate due to server software rot in, oh, a hundred
years or so.
Yours,
Doug Goncz, Replikon Research, Seven Corners, VA
Unpublished work Copyright 2003 Doug Goncz
Fair use and Usenet distribution without restriction or fee
Civil and criminal penalties for circumvention of any embedded encryption
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Can the Second Law of Thermodynamics Be Circumvented? |
17 Jul 2003 08:23:26 AM |
|
|
Sotau17 wrote:
Can the Second Law of Thermodynamics Be Circumvented?
Ref:http://www.csicop.org/sb/2002-09/reality-check.html
Reality Check
Has the Second Law Been Falsified?
Victor J. Stenger
On Thursday, July 18, 2002, 11:09 GMT the BBC Online News reported
breathlessly: "One of the most important principles of physics, that
disorder, or entropy, always increases, has been shown to be untrue."
The article, written by Online News Science editor David Whitehouse,
described new observations by scientists at the Australian National
University in which the entropy of a system of microscopic beads in a
water filled container was found to decrease for periods up to a two
seconds. (G.M. Wang et al. Physical Review Letters 89 050601 [2002]).
Here's how the BBC explained the significance of this result:
The law of entropy, or the Second Law of Thermodynamics, is one of
the bedrocks on which modern theoretical physics is based. It is one
of a handful of laws about which physicists feel most certain. So
much so that there is a common adage that if anyone has a theory
that violates the Second Law then, without any discussion, that
theory must certainly be wrong. The Second Law states that the
entropy-or disorder-of a closed system always increases. Put simply,
it says that things fall apart, disorder overcomes everything
-eventually. But when this principle is applied to small systems
such as collections of molecules there is a paradox.
Contrast this report with one provided the previous day by the American
Institute of Physics in its online Physics News Update. The article by
Phil Schewe, James Riordon, and Ben Stein stated that Australian
researchers have experimentally shown that microscopic systems (a nano-
machine) may spontaneously become more orderly for short periods of
time-a development that would be tantamount to violating the second law
of thermodynamics, if it happened in a larger system. Don't worry,
nature still rigorously enforces the venerable second law in
macroscopic systems, but engineers will want to keep limits to the
second law in mind when designing nanoscale machines.
This is a far more accurate statement than the one provided by the BBC.
In the nineteenth century, Lord Kelvin introduced the second law to
describe the observation that heat always flows from hot to cold. The
first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, allows for energy
to be exchanged in any direction. Students and patent officers are
taught that the second law forbids a perpetual motion machine-an engine
that can do work by taking energy from its environment. Rudolph
Claussius framed the second law in terms of a quantity called entropy
which is required to remain constant or increase for any isolated
system. This implied that certain thermodynamic processes such as heat
flow are irreversible.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, Ludwig Boltzmann showed that
that second law of thermodynamics is a statistical statement about the
behavior of particles. He proved that the molecules of a system tend to
approach their equilibrium distribution when started off away from
equilibrium. That equilibrium is characterized by a certain quantity H,
which is essentially negative entropy, approaching a minimum. In short,
Boltzmann basically derived the second law by assuming that matter was
composed of particulate bodies-atoms and molecules-and applying
Newtonian particle mechanics along with principles of statistics.
So, has a violation of the second law of thermodynamics been
demonstrated in an Australian laboratory? Hardly. This minimum in H, or
maximum in entropy, is just a statistical average and real systems will
fluctuate about this average. These fluctuations are very small for the
large number of molecules in common objects, but the fact remains that
entropy will fluctuate up and down. About the only surprise in these
new results is that violations can be found in a system as large as
micron-sized beads in water. The authors claim they are consistent with
their previously published fluctational theorem, derived from
established physics.
If the experiment is correct, the beads momentarily gained energy from
their environment. However, this perpetual motion machine only worked
for about two seconds and is not a likely practical device. Over longer
time periods, the average behavior will be governed by the statistics
of the second law. The main implication is that engineers building
nanoscale machines need to be prepared for them to behave strangely,
occasionally running backwards. Such effects may also be seen in
microbiology where cells and microbes are of comparable dimensions.
An interesting philosophical issue is raised by these results. It has
long been known that a direction of time cannot be found in the
equations of classical physics. In modern physics, a small time
asymmetry is seen in very rare processes, but no known mechanism
provides for the stark time irreversibility of common experience.
Although the issue is still hotly debated, some quantum processes may
even provide evidence for "backward causality," as I discussed in my
book Timeless Reality (Prometheus, 2000).
Sir Arthur Eddington coined the term "Arrow of Time" to describe the
direction of time provided by the second law. In that case, the second
law is really not a "law" at all but a definition of the Arrow of Time.
The direction of time is simply the direction in which the total
entropy of an isolated system increase. As such, it is useful only for
systems of large numbers of particles, such as those of common
experience. While no physicist will be astonished by the Australian
result, philosophers should regard it as an empirical confirmation of
the fact that the direction of time is arbitrary. All that prevents
sequences of events from happening in the time direction opposite to
that of common experience are the laws of chance.
About the Author
Victor J. Stenger is professor emeritus of physics and astronomy at the
University of Hawaii and now lives in the state of Colorado. His Web
site is still located at spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger
Crank Information
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher1
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AJean-Paul+Turcaud
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Can the Second Law of Thermodynamics Be Circumvented? |
17 Jul 2003 09:21:40 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Schmuck - can you toss heads 10^23 times in a row with an honest coin?
It is possible, but unlikely. No logical contradiction follows from such
a toss. On the other hand if you had to choose between two explanations
1. A very improbable thing has happened
or
2. The coin is biased.
Then 2 is easier to believe, but that does not make it so.
There is a difference between impossible and improbable.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Can the Second Law of Thermodynamics Be Circumvented? |
17 Jul 2003 12:43:42 PM |
|
|
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Schmuck - can you toss heads 10^23 times in a row with an honest coin?
It is possible, but unlikely. No logical contradiction follows from such
a toss. On the other hand if you had to choose between two explanations
1. A very improbable thing has happened
or
2. The coin is biased.
Then 2 is easier to believe, but that does not make it so.
There is a difference between impossible and improbable.
Bob Kolker
Bob,
1/[2^(10^23)] is not merely improbable.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
