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

\(U\) represents the system's total intrinsic energy, not chemical energy. Changes in \(H\) represent changes in \(U\) after subtracting the work done in changing volume, which usually leaves heat + chemical/electrical work. My objection to your formula is that it obscures the fact that \(H\) and \(S\) are themselves functions of temperature and pressure, so you can't simply use this formula with the values quoted in tables at SATP in order to say whether a reaction occurs or not. You can however either refer to experimental values determined for the required pressure and temperature, or else use the system's thermodynamic equation of state to theoretically calculate these values based on known values at some other pressure and temp.

Well let's not get confused over the crystals we're speaking of. Captain Kremmen was talking about the crystals that form out of solution at increased entropy. As for electrical work, any chemical reaction involves the exchange of electric charge, and so in theory the remaining energy left over from a reversible reaction (after volume work done on/by the atmosphere and heat exchanged) can be harnessed as electrical work, or electrical work can be performed to force the reaction.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm saying that the specific example of crystallization you cited would constitute an increase in entropy (and that entropy is indeed related to the magnitude of a system's disorder), but I fully agree that local entropies can decrease. If life defies the laws of thermodynamics, then so do refrigerators.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

CB
I've looked in quite a few places, and I can't find any that agree with your interpretation.
Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other.

Here's a question and answer from another site:
It is a better stated answer than mine, but we mean the same thing.

http://www.quora.com/If-entropy-is-constantly-increasing-why-can-crystal-structures-be-created

My example gave a salt solution rather than molten salt.
Perhaps the two cases are different.
Do you agree that in the latter case, there is a decrease in entropy in the salt after crystallisation?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think the link you provided is talking about a liquid cooling off into a solid and forming crystals as it does so. In that case, the liquid is losing heat to the atmosphere, so while the liquid's entropy drops as it crystalizes, the atmosphere's entropy gain more than offsets it. In the example you provided, say a salt solution becomes slightly saturated as temperature is slowly lowered, you claimed that the resulting crystals would be at higher entropy than the dissolved salt and claimed this as an indication that entropy does not really represent the degree of a system's disorder.

It may be that I jumped the gun and incorrectly took your claim for granted, and that in fact the crystals are at lower entropy but enough heat is released when they form out of solution to offset this. If, on the other hand, it is indeed true that the salt crystals are at higher entropy than the atoms which formed them, then that means the crystal must have a larger number of ways to store energy within a given volume, such as in vibrations.

 

The example of a molten salt crystallising is a better one.
Or a supersaturated solution.
My example of a saturated solution at a constant temperature isn't applicable, because it won't form crystals spontaneously.
The question of whether such crystals would be at higher or lower entropy is irrelevant, because they won't be there.
It is when crystals spontaneously form that you get decreased local entropy and increased order.

Your instincts were correct.

 

Really I was just trying to point out that the concept of "order" is somewhat subtle when talking about a system's entropy, but it is indeed valid. I lack a lot of specific details when discussing things like ions in solution (rushed through much of this stuff back when I learned it). I think classically their entropy might actually be considered infinite, in which case changes in entropy and ratios of infinities when counting microstates are what matter, so that you must compare the number of microstates for ions in a saturated solution to number of microstates with less ions and more crystals, plus account for any changes in atmospheric entropy.

 

Physicists say that at zero K, a perfect crystal has zero entropy.
I take that to mean that, like the speed of light, zero K is unattainable.

 

Right, quantum systems always have a non-zero ground-state energy. As I understand it, in theory any system at zero K would have zero entropy, it's called the Nernst postulate.

 

If we imbued upon a group of the finest engineers from ancient Rome, or surrounding territories, the basic concept of mach speed travel and asked what would be their best considered approach for its implementation, it is likely these very knowledgeable among people may well debate for forty days and forty nights about the proper rope-hemps, and skins, and grains of wood or masonry, and treatments they could use to construct a device appropriate to the task of propelling a human subject through the air at this never before conceived velocity. They would in essence be conceiving of a catapult. While our ancient Roman friends, who are no doubt knowledgeable for their time, can be forgiven for their misconceptions due to the unavailability of required knowledge appropriate to the task, today where the true nature of life is concerned, those who claim to be scientifically alert may offer no such excuse.

We should not continue to pretend nature is classically defined simply because we find the quantum informational foundation of it unfamiliar. Absent the underlying quantum mechanical concepts and all they imply, most classical notions of entropy and anti-entropy or of enthalpy, and gravity and light and time etc., although useful in the construction of catapults and such, are eventually roads to an impasse. Today, chances are you are either in denial about the natural implementation of life, or what you believe to be true is far more unnatural and scientifically implausible than the instantiation hypothesis.

It isn't my intention to change anyone’s mind, but rather to simply expose open minded readers to a new and practical way of thinking about a very old, perhaps the most personal of all ideas known to humankind, the recognition of a unique and scientifically plausible description of how nature governs not only species, but the individual, you. There is a very good chance, as is often the case with such invasive ideas about nature, that I and everyone who reads this post would be long gone before either the capability or the courage to honestly prove or disprove the instantiation of life hypothesis is achieved. However, every first step is worth taking.

 

Every time they cracked a whip, they were breaking the speed of sound.

 

I wonder what speed a hunk of lead would achieve if you hurled it by catapult off the edge of a cliff. I'm sure they could have come up with dozens of ways to accomplish the task.

 

Life isn't an example of where the classical physics reaches an impasse. The reason you think life somehow defies the laws of thermodynamics is because your understanding of the theory is flawed, not the theory itself.

If you want to model the thermal properties of small atomic systems, low temperature gases, crystals and other specialized phenomena, sure you need to start incorporating some quantum assumptions. Quantum mechanics also provides an underlying explanation for why the classical laws of thermodynamics exist in the first place. Again though, none of biological life's properties have been demonstrated to defy classical physics, other than requiring quantum mechanics to explain the spontaneity of the chemical reactions involved, why magnetism exists, etc.

 

I don't think zero point energy is related to the unattainability of absolute zero. Surely it is purely a practical point of experimental physics, isn't it?

As I understand it, absolute zero is the temperature at which there is no more extractable heat in a body. As zero point energy is by definition not extractable (there being no state below the ground state), zero point energy does not contribute to the temperature of a body.

Furthermore it does not seem to be the case that the entropy is zero at 0K. The entropy is a constant at absolute zero but nothing says its absolute value is zero - due indeed to the remaining zero point energy.

Link here for further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_law_of_thermodynamics

P.S. By the way thanks for correcting my careless remark about Internal Energy earlier. It is of course the sum of both thermal energy and various sorts of "binding" energy within matter, including chemical energy (intermolecular and intramolecular) and nuclear binding energy.

 

That would need to be a very high cliff top. About 3.75 miles high.
They would require a Roman aeroplane.
http://www.gravitycalc.com/

If only Mount Everest had a cliff on one side going down to sea level.
You wouldn't even need the catapult.

 

As actually reading the text would reveal, no aspect of the modern scientific understanding of biology or its chemical properties is being challenged. The cell and the verifiable aspects of its biological evolution are as science currently describes them. The instantiation hypothesis begins where the modern scientific narrative admittedly, voluntarily abstains and traditionally religions are permitted to fill what is arguably the most important of all voids, and likely the only void any living being may actually care most about. That is, the process governing the process of instantiation of life. It is for this reason that humankind has fought and prayed for a time far longer than science itself has existed. It is much overdue for the narrative to be extended not by mysticism or ideological entrenchment but by well reasoned, steely objective thought, because clearly not just some, but all of nature is ultimately science.

 

I still don't understand what you're going on about. Whether you're dealing with the question of how life formed in the first place (abiogenesis) or how it multiplied and evolved thereafter, there are several viable scientific theories following similar lines of reasoning which have both strong supporting evidence and full agreement with the physical principles currently accepted by mainstream science. Maybe 150 years ago, scientists still shrugged their shoulders when asked to postulate how the first living cells and their constituents could have formed, but a great deal of progress has been made on the subject since then.

We have a sun, the sun provides the low-entropy power supply needed for life to form, no contradiction there.

 

Science is not interested in a "narrative". That is a slippery word, suggesting something sliding between fact, hypothesis, speculation and fiction.

Well -reasoned, objective thought would be welcome, but even more so would be some reference to objective observations of nature. Science "voluntarily abstains" from going beyond what observation either supports or could in principle support. That abstention is crucial. It is what makes it possible to rely on science, in other words what gives its intellectual rigour and strength.

So far you have shown a predilection for picking up bright, shiny terms from science, apparently without understanding, and weaving them into a fabric of pompous but meaningless prose. That is not steely or objective thought and, since there is no reference at all to observation, either already made or potential, there is no science either.

 

Beyond how nature populates the universe, The Instantiation of life hypothesis describes how you inhabit this universe.


It suggests: You are something in addition to your physical form, and that something is natural, real, and eventually measurable and likely known to modern science.


It suggests: You are the result of a process involving an immutable property of the entanglement spectrum, a fundamental aspect of nature that may have predated even the big bang.


It suggests: A natural mechanism by which you have, can, and will be repeatedly instantiated, alive anywhere in this universe in any viable form biological, evolved, or perhaps otherwise and you will be as naturally alive, sensory experience notwithstanding, and somewhat as certain of and committed to that being as you are at this moment to this being.

 

You're free to postulate whatever hypothesis you want for the origins and nature of life, but that does nothing to establish the false claim that life as we know it lives in defiance of entropy.

 

I think he's given up on the anti-entropy kick, thanks to your criticism of it and now we are on a quantum woo kick instead. Entanglement and all that. The objective, as far as I can understand it, through the jungle of mostly meaningless prose, is to provide a quasi-rationale for the idea of spirit as being part of life. Some kind of reincarnation seems to be involved as well, disguised as "instantiation".