Second Law of Thermodynamics Proven False

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 05:13:43 GMT, "Not So Fast" said:


"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."

I thought we already knew the laws of physics don't always apply at sub-
microscopic levels.

In article <[Only registered users see links. ] m>, "/dev/null" <admin@127.0.0.1> writes:

True. but not relevant to the case above. It is not a quantum
mechanics issue, or such, the statement you quote above is simply
false, that's all. There is no paradox, sincs the second law *does
not* say what the author of the statement claims it says. The above
is typical of "science coverage for the masses". Simplistic and
misleading.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
[Only registered users see links. ] | chances are he is doing just the same"

[Only registered users see links. ] wrote in message news:<tsbFb.53$[Only registered users see links. ]>...

? I think you read "classical" or "macroscopic" into the claim.


But the science writer wrote:

"One of the most important principles of physics, that disorder, or
entropy, always increases, has been shown to be untrue."

How could you _possibly_ say such a carefully nuanced statement is
simplistic and misleading. :-)

/dev/null wrote:

In "Time Bandits" the director needed to make a difficult scene and wound up
using a small model of person filmed in reverse so that it reacted like a
real person in a dangerous situation when run forward. Playing DvDs backwards
contains messages from the lived.

In article <[Only registered users see links. ] >, [Only registered users see links. ] (Edward Green) writes:

Well, it is. But then, we don't really expect science writers to know
much science, do we?

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
[Only registered users see links. ] | chances are he is doing just the same"

On 21 Dec 2003 03:35:49 -0800, Edward Green <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:
<tsbFb.53$[Only registered users see links. ]>...
"/dev/null" <admin@127.0.0.1> writes:

Well, it is not what Dennis Evans, the scientist, actually says. I know
Dennis and his work is first-class. The fact that the Second Law only
applies to very large collections of particles is well known. Dennis is
simply showing how we can actually get some sense out of very small
collections of particles. It is a great step forward I think, although I
am a quantum chemist not a thermodynamics chemist like Dennis.

--
Brian Salter-Duke Humpty Doo, Nr Darwin, Australia
My real address is b_duke(AT)octa4(DOT)net(DOT)au
Use this for reply or followup
Member of Australian Skeptics - [Only registered users see links. ]

In article <sxqFb.1501$[Only registered users see links. ].au>, Brian Salter-Duke <[Only registered users see links. ].invalid> writes:

More accurately, that the second law is a statistical law, thus
subject to statistical uncertainties, the relative magnitude of which
depends on the number of degrees of freedom. All this is known for a
very, very long time, more than a century.


That's very nice, but this is *not* what the statement I was
responding to said. That one sounded like a shameless attempt to
present well known results as new and revolutionary.


There is no step forward involved since, as I said, all of this is
known for a very long time. you can check out "entropy fluctuations"
in any decent stat mechanics book. And Brownian motion was observed
more than a century ago.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
[Only registered users see links. ] | chances are he is doing just the same"

Dear mmeron:

<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:vFqFb.8$[Only registered users see links. ]...
<[Only registered users see links. ].invalid> writes:
....

Mati, inducing a magnetic moment in a spherical object using a laser, and
then moving the object around is a "step forward". And this has not been
done for a century. Has it?

The "violation of the second law" is certainly no advance, since I can cool
my home, and violate the second law... if I draw the control volume the
wrong way.

David A. Smith

In article <LmsFb.23792$gN.2115@fed1read05>, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:[Only registered users see links. ]> writes:
I was commenting on one specific statement (you may track the thread
back and find it). This statement contains *nothing* about magnetic
moments, lasers and the like. It is a statement about the second law.
And it is wrong. That's all there is to it.

Worse and worse. Why would you think that cooling your home violates
the second law?

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
[Only registered users see links. ] | chances are he is doing just the same"

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 19:08:42 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:


What does "draw the control volume" mean?