Entropy vs. Anti-Entropy (How DNA Defeats the Blackhole)

The entropy is lower for the shaken oil and water because gravity will separate them again.
Energy that will perform an action has been introduced into the system.
I don't know why physicists use the notion of organisation in regard to entropy.
I think it's meant to simplify things, but it isn't always true, as with the example of crystallisation from a saturated solution of table salt. The crystal is more ordered than the solution, but the bonding releases energy as heat.
The definition of increasing entropy as a lowering of the net amount of useful energy is always true.
And not too difficult I think.

Another confusion over entropy occurs as a result of misunderstanding closed and open systems. People think that entropy happens differently in them. It doesn't.
In both of them, local entropy can be decreased, but the net amount of entropy is always increased by any operation.
A closed system is just an idealised system in which external forces have no effect.
It is used to make calculations simpler. In terms of physical laws it is exactly the same as an open system.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is crucial to understand species and species development and evolution. However absent the comprehension of the true role of these structures one misses the reality of life in this universe.

The limited perspective of life we now embrace is akin to a distant future paleontologists eons after life has left the earth attempting to explain how uncovered vehicular artifacts could have operated all over the earth without first realizing the existence of human beings as a fundamental component of vehicular operation. Our, perhaps non-biological, dirt digger could deduce all manner of insights about the discovered operation of the cars and, aircraft parts and their operation but unable or unwilling to comprehend the existence of a naturally implemented intelligent species of the kind they have never imagined much less seen the mystery for them would be as untenable as life presently is to us. The missing component in biology today is you.

The Monogamy of Entanglement is the fundamental scientific principle of nature which implements each instance of life (i.e. you) by natural entanglement in any viable habitat. It is the property of nature in this universe that makes individuality possible and provides the singleton, non-locality and non-relativistic characteristics of instantiation via natural entanglement.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0604168v2.pdf

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please explain this term, without using any special words or jargon, using standard English:
"Monogamy of Entanglement".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are you really saying that a 'future paleontologist' might think that manufactured objects were not made by an intelligent being and instead spontaneously appeared? That would be a pretty stupid 'future paleontologist'!

Made up absurd bull shit!

This paper does not support your position at all.

 

When you started this thread, entropy and "anti-entropy" were said to be the key concepts. Now you want (like all trendy quatum-woo merchants) to drag entanglement into it, which has nothing whatsoever to do with entropy. You seem to pick up bits of science like a magpie, without understanding any of them.

Unfortunately what you write is so garbled that it is not even possible to argue about it.

 

Captain Kremmen said: "Please explain this term, without using any special words or jargon, using standard English: "Monogamy of Entanglement". "


If your interest in this subject is genuine it is best to research it on your own. However since you inquired of me I will happily oblige;
Simply put, the monogamy of entanglement enforces isolation upon an entangled state. Once an entangled state or connection is established weather naturally or otherwise, it cannot be shared it may only be severed and a new state be established. This natural security or insulator if you will is what makes entanglement in the lab a good candidate for encryption security protocols.

Likewise in life the monogamy of entanglement isolates individuality. I personally have always imagined the Monogamy of Entanglement as the insulation (metaphorical) on the copper wires of life; it prevents short circuits between living individuals. Each cell during mitosis like each dolphin or human during gestation establishes an entanglement connection between its entanglement molecules and metamatter as described in the hypothesis. This connection whether in a single cell or when heterodyned by the entanglement cells in a horse, the entanglement cannot be shared naturally by another life due to the Monogamy of Entanglement. It must first be severed by what we call death.

 

The entropy of a macroscopic thermal state is logarithmically proportional to the number of microstates available to the system which yield that macroscopic state. A crystal may appear ordered, but there's a huge number of different ways the atoms in the crystal can distribute the available energy throughout its volume, more so than there were before the crystal formed.

Oh and if it hasn't already been mentioned, OP forgot that all life on Earth is essentially powered by something called "the sun".

 

So there are more distributions of energy available in a lattice than in a random soup of ions?
Any links to support that assertion?

 

It's a pretty fundamental relation in thermodynamics/statistical mechanics, originally discovered by Ludwig Boltzmann 150 years ago (later Richard Feynman showed how it's actually a consequence of quantum mechanics): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann's_entropy_formula

If you really, really want I can try linking you to some entropy calculations for crystal lattices vs. ion soups. Don't forget though that as ordered as a crystal might appear, there are many different ways in which its atoms can vibrate.

 

I must say this does not sound right to me.

I assume S = k ln W is common knowledge to all of us, but my understanding is that the entropy of a crystalline solid e.g. ice, is lower than that of the corresponding liquid, e.g. water. Which mean that W is smaller for ice than for water and this will be true for most solid states when compared with the melted liquid. My understanding is that ice forms when the free energy change favours this, which is a balance between the competing influences of enthalpy (latent heat of fusion in this case) and entropy change x temperature. This is expressed in that old favourite thermodynamic formula of chemists: ΔG = H -TΔS. So at high temperature the entropy terms wins and causes the molten state to be the more stable, while at lower temperature the enthalpy term wins and ice forms.

Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

 

"If you analyze it closely you will, I think, find that it is just a little bit more than a collection of single data (experiences and memories), namely the canvas upon which they are collected. And you will, on close introspection, find that what you really mean by ‘I’ is that ground-stuff upon which they are collected." [Schrödinger, Erwin (1992-01-31). What is Life? (Canto) Cambridge University Press]


The next fertile undiscovered frontier of science is the study of how the individual (you) naturally inhabit this universe. This topic speaks to the really interesting question of how any life, you, came to be where you are in the form that you are. Consciousness, self-awareness, sentience are evolved attributes had by very few forms of life in earth’s ecosystem, yet all are just as alive in nature. Such attributes cannot be relevant to either nature’s fundamental implementation of life, to being alive, or to experience. Experience may be enhanced by these attributes as they evolve in more complex hosts or species, but the phenomena which establish an instance of life likely brings no experience at all.


The position-of-view (POV) as described by the instantiation hypothesis is implemented by a fundamental property of nature called natural entanglement. This process produces the POV which localizes you in your space-time, whether you have five, one, twenty or no senses. Regardless of what or where ones living form may be in this universe. Effectively ones POV is the target for all of the sensory information we call experience. Any beings lifeID is temporarily localized to its host body by the naturally occurring entanglement between its physical host such as ones cell(s) together with a non-relativistic form of matter called metamatter (in Hilbert-space). The POV of each individual life can be represented mathematically by its unique wave function. This wave function is a unique solution of state for the individual in space-time and is the term missing from many of our quantum mechanical solutions. The POV is nothing less than the mathematical representation of a living being.


In life the POV brings no experience but only that which may have an experience. In nature a POV is the mathematical representation of a lifeID established either by entanglement of a single cell to metamatter, or alternatively by the heterodyning of multiple entanglement cells (EC) to metamatter. If you are in fact alive then your composite lifeID and its position-of-view together constitutes your being regardless of your physical state, form, condition or location in space-time. If the entanglement hypothesis accurately depicts the reality in this universe and the entanglement molecule exists, then it represents the most fundamental physical component of life as we know it. Like the Top-Quark, or the Higgs, the Ether or DNA, the entanglement molecule may someday be isolated and identified either in the cell or in the environment. or not. Either way we may learn something along the way.

 

Meaningless word salad.

 

TL
Suggested Reading:
Collective Excitations and Quasiparticles.
Then you can add plasmons, phonons, and holes to the mix.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle

 

Any time net heat is being added to a system, its entropy increases, no question. We're not comparing ice crystals to water though, we're comparing ions in solution to the crystals that form from them when the solvent evaporates or is otherwise saturated. As for your usage of Gibbs free energy \(\Delta G\), the formula you state is actually quite misleading (although it's the form I myself learned in high school). With a little mathematical manipulation it can be shown that, when a system is placed in thermal and physical contact with a reservoir at constant temperature and pressure, the maximization of the total entropy (system + reservoir) occurs when the Gibbs free energy of the system is minimized, meaning reactions that lower this energy will occur spontaneously. However, there's more to the story than what you wrote.

In high school, we were taught about enthalpy as if it were a measure of heat, when in general it's actually a measure of combined heat + electrical work done on or by a system, and entropy changes are what depend exclusively on heat. Gibbs free energy generally represents the electrical work alone, subtracting the heat contribution from the enthalpy. You need to note that (in general) the enthalpy of a reaction changes with temperature and pressure, as does the entropy, so you can't simply plug your formula in with \(H\) and \(S\) treated as constants. Thankfully if you have a thermodynamic model of the system in question (i.e. ideal or Van der Waals gas), you can theoretically predict how \(S\), \(H\) and \(G\) all change with temperature, pressure and mole number, provided you know these values at some given initial pressure and temp.

 

Thanks for replying. Could you elaborate on the respect in which you consider the equation for change in Gibbs free energy is misleading? I appreciate it relates to changes occurring at constant pressure (H = U + PV), which is why chemists use it so much, as it is appropriate for the conditions of a great many chemical reactions in the lab. Enthalpy change is thus the sum of change in chemical energy plus any incidental "PV" work done on, or by, the atmosphere during the change. But how is it misleading, exactly?

Secondly, I do not follow why you mention electrical work. If we talk about the energy state of a crystalline solid and compare it to either the corresponding liquid (as I did) or to a dissolved solution (as it seems you are doing), where does electrical work come into it?

 

CB
Are you saying that there can never be a local decrease in entropy?
Or are you saying that local decreases can occur, but that crystallisation is not an example of it?

If the latter, what examples would you accept?

 

This is my first post on this site so I know you will all take it for what it's worth. Naïvely I posted this on APOD in discussion of a Hubble picture showing thousands of galaxies strewn across our universe.

"Images like this paint a picture of a universe that shows the vastly overwhelming state of increasing randomness. The only entities proven to exist which are capable of decreasing entropy are people and other living organisms on our planet. Despite the size of our observable universe it seems the only hope to reverse the randomness is through interventions manipulating energy to, one day far in the future, bring it back to the way it all began. Perhaps that’s the reason we are all here, perhaps not. But it does occur to me that nothing beside life is likely ever to reverse even a gravitationally bound but expanding universe. Maybe the anthropic principle is alive, well and capable of so much more than any of us could begin to imagine."

I haven't read this entire discussion but "ontologically-speaking" it seemed to me a profound thought that I later ran across in this discussion forum. It wasn't exactly well taken on APOD but I can't think of a much grander purpose for life than to be anti-entropic. Not likely "the meaning or purpose of life" but it seemed pertinent to this conversation so I look forward to reading the rest of this conversation and the comments following.

 

Welcome.

I find those pictures simply amazing.

I am not sure why that picture shows increase randomness but it is true that entropy of the universe increases.

Not only has that not been proven it is not correct. People and life in general increase the entropy of the universe.

Huh? It is not possible and why would you want to?

The universe does not appear to be graviationally bound. Many billions of years from now a sentient being in the milky way would see a universe that had only a few observable galaxies as compared to today because the universe is not graviationally bound.

I am not sure what mankind is capable of, but reversing entropy is probably not on the menu!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I am afraid you may have fallen prey to the same misconceptions about thermodynamics as some others. Nothing we do - or anything living does - "decreases entropy" in total. All we can do is decrease entropy in parts of a total system in which entropy remorselessly increases. No process anywhere reduces entropy in total.

The discussion we have been having relates to entropy decreasing in certain circumstances, in part of a total system. When ice freezes, the entropy of the ice decreases. But Latent Heat of Fusion is released, which goes into the environment, causing an increase in entropy there, which is greater than the reduction that occurs in the water as it freezes to ice.

Likewise you can forget any special rule for living things or for sentient beings. We may think that, as sentient beings we are uniquely capable of reducing entropy by conscious will, for example when we tidy a child's bedroom. But the metabolism of our bodies, as we move about tidying, relies on converting chemical energy to low grade heat, which increases the entropy of the universe by a lot more than whatever greater degree of order we achieve with a tidy room. It's all woo. That's what we have trying to explain to Tony Lang, without success.

 

People can increase or decrease the rate at which entropy occurs.
If I travel in my car tomorrow, I will create more entropy than if I decide to walk.