Thermodynamics and The Universe

Dear Percy,I was going to try and dissuade you from the slightly trollish behaviour of posting obvious nonsense, but from Buz's last reply I see that nonsense is the order of the day.I'm not sure your new hobby of acting as an echo chamber for the comedy stylings of our local creationists is all that productive, plus they never seem to notice.The ongoing discussion by MartinV and Brad already seems like a particularly verbose and dadaesque bit of Beckett. I'm not sure we need another forum of similar surreal dialogue.TTFN,AW

It's still a lot of fun to read it. A nice change for the usual debate tactics I'd say

I'm curious how you're measuring the entropy of the whole Earth. I'm not convinced that there's any less entropy on Earth than there is on Mars, for instance.For the third time, though, tell us how you would explain the Two Slit experiment in a "classical" (that means, non-QM-based) way.

On comparing Earth's entropy with that of other planets:If I were to accept Ilya Prigogine's argument for dissipative structures operating far from equilibrium, and if I were to assume that living organisms qualify as dissipative structures, then it would be fair to say that Earth has a great deal more entropy production than Mars or Venus, because dissipative structures (e.g., bacteria) produce consierably more entropy than non-dissipative structures (e.g., rocks). The collective entropy in Earth's biosphere should be computable, via Prigogine, and any life-supporting planet should have measurably higher amounts of entropy than others of equal size that are lifeless.I do not know enough about QM to suppose how it would associate with all this bio-entropy. But if I look at a genome or a population as a biological macrostate I can see how genes and their alleles might represent microstates that provide both vital variation and far-from-equilibrium boundaries. (To me, life seems more thermodynamical than quantum mechanical.)”HM

I hope you don't mind if I butt in before Parasomnium: This is like asking, how do you measure the length of the equator with a micrometer? You don't. You don't use QM to explain the Solar System because it is practically impossible. You use classical approximations, which on this scale yield results that are practically indistinguishable from QM results. Adjectives such as 'mysterious', 'obfuscatory', and 'controversial' describe your perception of a subject that you haven't studied in detail and don't have the capacity to understand. They say nothing about the science of QM as such (which, paradoxically, you claim to accept). No, we don't. As others have pointed out, there is no obvious way of estimating this entropy. And QM has nothing to do with that - nor do the things that you mentioned earlier (the "Goldilocks" conditions for habitability). I have to ask, too: what do you think entropy is?

Great, then how about you use your layman's logical outlook to explain the two slit experiment, like Crash has been asking you?Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Please read again what I said. Quantum physics cannot be used to explain the Solar system, you need classical theories for that: Newtonian physics and relativity. My point was that if someone is using their own human-scale everyday experience to try and understand quantum physics, they are going to fail miserably. If quantum physics is perceived as mysterious and obfuscatory, it's precisely because of this way of looking at it. And however mysterious and obfuscatory quantum physics may seem, there's one thing it's most emphatically not, and that's controversial. Quantum physics is one of the most successful, best tested and widely accepted theories in the whole of science, right up there with - you won't like this, Buz - the theory of evolution. Quantum physics enables scientists to make astoundingly accurate predictions that are borne out by observation:

quote:

---

"Richard Feynman compared [quantum physics'] precision to predicting a distance as great as the width of North America to an accuracy of one human hair's breadth." - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

---

This isn't QM specific but Lisa Randall, who knows more than a little about cosmology and QM writes, "we understand far more about the world than we did just a few short years ago -- and yet we are more uncertain about the true nature of the universe than ever before".

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Although I am still wrestling with how Gladsyhev's views may scale into populations I am somewhat appreciative of his reservations about dissipation.
I had posted this on EVC before:
http://EvC Forum: Thermodynamics, Abiogenesis and Evolution -->EvC Forum: Thermodynamics, Abiogenesis and Evolution

quote:

---

In editorial paper published in a very authoritative journal ?Entropy ? the editor-in-chief Dr. Shu-Kun Lin has written [16]:
"?it is not surprise that an honest chemist (among any other educated chemists, biologist, etc.) will tell you that he has never found an application of this entropy theory in chemistry (or in biology, physics, engineering?)". Author bears in mind "the Prigogin?s dissipative structure theory". Dr. Shu-Kun Lin concludes: "I have a clear opinion regarding this entropy theory. Its main problem is that it does not conform with the Second law of thermodynamics". I personally fully agree with this point of view.
The apologists of the theory of the entropy production and of dissipative structures (which really exist in the system far from the equilibrium state) discuss sometimes the question about the production and accumulation of some ?low-entropy product ? in the evolutionizing biological systems. Some authors believe that the principle of the minimum entropy production (S?) at some circumstances may be equivalent to the principle of maximum production of this ?low-entropy product?. However, if to speak about the classical entropy ( S ) all above mentioned arguments must be rejected as deprived of the physical sense.

---

I had tried to read Prigogine's original papers after reading the more popular but I could not find the details I was looking for. I had reasons to think that dissipation was important because that weird idea I had had as a teenager about gravity waves affecting protein kinase phosphorlyation and protein shapes off ribosomes may have with Prigogine's dissipation a provided quanity of gravity able to change chemical kinematics. I found however that this ideas was replaced in my mental place for physiology by the possible scaling properties of the temporality of monohierarchies in macrothermodynamics for the continuum contemplated. This quote on EVC is a little "broken" so perhaps you may be interested in some of his own links.Dr. Gladyshev's site in Russia is:
I would suggest trying not to fall student to out-of-equilibria positions as long as possible, as you can be a better intellect for it! The other way only becomes "smater" if you FIRST reject all "Christianity" etc and this I doubt you would prefer. I see no other alternative.It is true that there may be suspicions otherwise

quote:

---

http://net.bio.net/bionet/mm/btk-mca/1997-July/001282.html

---

But in my own ideas on physiology in part developed by trying to think what Bohr would have thought I know that "this" is NOT already worked out.There "is" a logical contradiction if the argument is pursued in all its creation and evoltion aspects (there is a book on how do deal with creation and evolution and it simply states that the "energy converter" that YECs insist is missing from evos IS dealt with by the thought of Gladsyhev but the book insists that that is a non-issue, that no one is argueing about it. There ARE ways of thinking life and earth evolved together without this but... and THAT is why I had to change my physiological mind. There IS INDEED something there/here).Here is an excerpt from a paper Dr. Gladshev sent me a year back.

quote:

---

I. Progogine's [29-31], and other researchers' fallacies accounted for by neglecting (to some or another extent) Gibbs's works and underestimating the possibilities offered by thermodynamics. In some of my publications, I emphasized the substantial misunderstandings in this field [11, 20, 22, 23] that the founders of classical thermodynamics noted long ago [1, 2, 10-13].

---

I have uploaded the whole document at
http://aexion.org/product.aspxunder

quote:

---

SecondLaw(...)doc

---

I have also uploaded the most recent information that Georgi sent me before this past new year.
under

quote:

---

Brad(...)doc

---

which opens with

quote:

---

For decades, the opinion was widespread that natural open biological systems are far from an equilibrium state. It was also believed that far from equilibrium processes take place in these systems. Indeed, if this is true, then thermodynamics (i.e. thermostatics), or the thermodynamics of quasi-equilibrium systems and processes, cannot be applied.
However, recently, the law of temporal hierarchies was formulated. This law substantiates the possibility of identifying, or discerning, quasi-closed monohierarchical systems or subsystems within open polyhierarchical biological systems.

---

You can find information about the relation to QM in his work if you read far enough.Edited by Brad McFall, : 2nd to last quote

Brad, I tend to agree that Prigogine’s theory of dissipative structures has failed to capture the whole business of life. The thrust of his theory seems to have stalled out in recent times. But I do see how his far-from-equilibrium argument can apply to biological systems, maybe even to social systems. Thanks for Gladyshev's links; I’ll check them out.You wrote: I don’t understand this. What gives you the impression that I would “fall student to out-of-equilibria positions”? I was merely suggesting that a pound of manure produces more entropy than a pound of rocks. Since neither Venus nor Mars has any manure I concluded that Earth produces more entropy than the other two planets (we’ve got plenty of manure down here!). As for your comment about Christianity, this too is hard for me to understand. You must have me confused with a Christian who wants to take Prigogine’s theory to church. Well, I am not Christian. I am an untheist”I believe it doesn’t matter if there is or isn’t a God.You quoted Gladyshev:

quote:

---

For decades, the opinion was widespread that natural open biological systems are far from an equilibrium state. It was also believed that far from equilibrium processes take place in these systems. Indeed, if this is true, then thermodynamics (i.e. thermostatics), or the thermodynamics of quasi-equilibrium systems and processes, cannot be applied.

​

However, recently, the law of temporal hierarchies was formulated. This law substantiates the possibility of identifying, or discerning, quasi-closed monohierarchical systems or subsystems within open polyhierarchical biological systems.

---

I am aware of this recent “law of temporal hierarchy” commotion, but I haven’t adopted it yet. And I don’t see why it should scotch dissipative structures in biology, either.”HM

In PAF it has been determined by 2 Admins that I'm out of my field here. I'll not be in any more science discussions so don't expect responses from buzsaw here. Please do not respond to this message here. The moderation thread would be the place if you have any comment. I'm not out to make an issue of it.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Buz, imagine I walk into one of your superbowl stadia where the teams are warming up, and I annouce in my strongest British accent -

quote:

---

I say chaps, this American Football is for nancy boys with all your effeminate shoulder pads and jock straps. You should try Rugga, a game for real men.

---

How long do you think I'd last? Alternatively, I could walk in and at a quiet moment, say -

quote:

---

hi guys, I really don't know anything about American Football, can you explain it to me? Us Brits have some preconceptions about the game but we're not exactly qualified to comment.

---

Don't avoid the science fora, just use them as a place to learn. It's where you can get your misconceptions ironed out, but only if you admit upfront that most of what you know (given your layman sources) is going to be misconception. And it's no good caveating yourself upfront, declaring yourself a layman, then going on to speak as if you're anything but. What's that about STFUASTFD and cotton wool, ears and mouth?

Hi Buz,I had no intention of replying, but since Cavediver mentions the layperson level of understanding I thought maybe some clarification might be helpful.When you're talking to Cavediver you have to realize there are actually two levels of layperson understanding. The first level is the uninformed layperson level. This is the person who has done no reading at all and is only aware of popular impressions. This is where you seem to be on this topic.The second level is the informed layperson level. This includes those who have read *and* understood popularizations, except that Cavediver believes that on some issues the simplifications are so severe as to be very misleading or even wrong, but I don't think Cavediver has taken this position on anything that's come up in this thread so far. I don't believe you're at the second level, familiarity with popularizations, for most scientific topics.Applying quantum uncertainty to incredibly large objects like planets and solar systems is an example of why people always begin to question your understanding. It's okay to have something wrong. We all get stuff wrong all the time. It's that once you have something wrong you refuse to be corrected. You'll go on for pages and pages arguing for misimpressions you have. I'm not going to the bother of reading back through the thread to see if that was the case with QM and planets and solar systems, it's just a topic I recall you raising, but the reason I would prefer that you not participate in the science threads is that one can easily imagine that by post 300 no one would have been able to convince you that QM doesn't apply to large objects, and the original topic of the thread would have been long forgotten.Another example is when you assumed that we know whether the entropy of something the size of a planet is increasing or decreasing. We literally have no idea. It's just too huge and complex an entity. We can say with great assurance that the entropy of the entire solar system is decreasing because probably to a couple levels of approximation it is an isolated system, but about individual planets we can say no such thing. The sun is adding energy, energy is radiating off into space, the core is cooling, there's gravitational interaction with the moon, sun and other objects, there's the magnetic field draining energy off from currents in the core, sometimes heating breaks apart bonds creating increased entropy, sometimes heating creates bonds decreasing entropy, cooling causes crystallization and more order and therefore decreased energy, it's just all so complex no one knows whether the entropy of the earth is increasing or decreasing. But one can easily imagine that you'll still be arguing this is something knowable today at post 300.If you'd like to take Cavediver's advice and listen instead of insisting that your views have merit, then your presence in the science forums would be fine. But if you're just going to dig in your heels on whatever mistaken belief happens to strike your fancy and refuse to allow any explanations to have any impact, then we've seen too, too much of this already.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Percy. Your and Cavediver's messages beg a response, imo, but I have no intensions of derailing this good thread with one. I will be out of town most of the day but when I get to it I'd like to open a thread in Coffee House regarding items in your messages which I consider significant relative to the problems you cite.

and then there was a second "if"...
WHY?

quote:

---

and if I were to assume that living organisms qualify as dissipative structures, then ...

---

It seems to me we can not have living organisms "qualifying" as 'dissipative structures before we have life quantified as the same. This of course is something different than living organisms possessing so-called dissipative structures whether one tends to scotch the snake with old Simpsons shows or not.It seems that this reason to consider Earth having a different entropy than Venus etc. IS due to life affected chemcial changes. Perhaps there is a planetary scientist out there who argues without respect to life. I am not just not familiar with such.If one is going to think that life is far from equilibria then I also dont see why one would not associate negative entropy with such superfludity in life and yet then it would be hard for my physiological sense to distinguish prima facie that it is the replication of bacteria LIFE that is generating the sense that "more" entropy is so produced (on and off Earth)than rocks weathering etc, especially if one accepts that celluar automatata following simple rules that are not-life can "replicate" in (the) sense (that say Dyson seperated replication and metabolism).If however one trys to think about linear extensions in one's understanding only first(and then) to the terminus of discussion, then, by not falling into the fad/modernism of non-linearity etc, one may be in a state to accept that even if parts of life may be dissipative that (particular)individual life never was and the difference between the entropy of Venus and Earth may be approached IF LIFE was found Venus or Mars but not otherwise (unless I am wrong and Wolfram is right). Part of the problem is the notion of "information entropy" and other kinds that Gladyshev discusses. I do not hold it against anyone for not taking the more proactive position on Gladyshev's work as I do as I still struggle to get the clearest possible intuition of the affect on populations. Javaman expressed this opinion to me on EVC before as well. All I know is that I can not be accused of NOT using "population" thinking as Ernst Mayr tried to do and say to me.Gladyshev did relate his own ideas to QM but this was IN PART via a meta commentary on Penrose and brain states with what I conceptualize in an earlier narrative as a weak discussion of cellular differentiation. He does provide pure physics work but this depends in this case we are discussing on one being able to relate simple notions of aggregation and dissociation to a complete track in ontogeny and phylogeny as a whole.I know I based my comments to you at "Christianity" largerly out of the "mirror" in my mind of you and not based on what is gleanable from your posts. I was really trying just to keep the domain of studies of non-linearity and non-equilibrium issues OUT of the better and better discussion. That was more a social comment.
You wrote earlier

quote:

---

But if I look at a genome or a population as a biological macrostate I can see how genes and their alleles might represent microstates that provide both vital variation and far-from-equilibrium boundaries. (To me, life seems more thermodynamical than quantum mechanical.)

---

The future of biology to me is one where this difference is bridged. I have after 40yrs just suffiently gained enough knowledge in biology to think of the clear difference of a "genome" or a "gene" or an organism or a population but I know of no one who has this knowledge (most of the biologists of our day) AND and ability to DO QM and Thermo.There is only ONE dynamics in evolution not a plurified"evolutionary dynamics".That is what the next 40 yrs of my life is for. I do not see this "synthesis" as one where "genes" or even the 1-D 'codes' o them are QM microstates WITHIN a level of organization of an accumulated "macro"state of species individuality of lower order at all. If THAT was to be my biophysical thought then I would find that Einstein's view of a fusion of all forces including LIFE was not criticizable as it has been by physicists since. I tend to think that there is much more going on here but it is hard for me to say just what today.I dont mean to be divisive here especially as the links I provided may be of help. I just wanted you to know what I thought(as an aside and indicating a direction to take this intrathread linkage elsewhere on EVC you might know that Gladyshev considers "social structures" as well as subject to his LAW and this rather than the reference to Christianity is where I would have expected the Beckett of Brad And Martin V to have headed in(to)).