Fig 2.
- Condition I* The system’s
Entropy (actual) is the same inside and outside
Sinside = Soutside And we assume it has
already reached equilibrium after >4 B.Y.
Energy available to do work (inside) = Energy
available to do work (outside
In Condition I, in which it started with Eo
<< below the threshold w/o life.
- We
can however, imagine another condition, “Condition II”**
in which the system theoretically began with some organized matter.
However, since we postulate (based on equivalence principal) the model
applies to machines, inanimate matter as well as Living Machines”. And postulate that this is now a Virtual
Closed system, with an entropy boundary, so any initial organized matter
present at t=0 would undergo “heat death” or decay (inside that space
enclosed by the entropy boundary).
[*In condition I
we have essentially defined an equilibrium state, established over an assumed,
very long time period, (i.e. 4 b.y. billion years) relevant to what is the
available energy to do work, inside and outside the virtual sphere. This is not
a maximum entropy state, but is meant to delineate an “indifferent entropic
state” in which the available work energy has reached equivalence. The unexpected consequence, is perhaps, that
this condition also would apply to other time states, much more recent, and
could be envisioned in principal, as continuous. It is the basis of what is
proposed here, as a ‘continuity principal’ of how useful energy is
flowing from its source and is explored further in a later section. But this is
further elaborated upon and supported by the "Indifferent Time” principal
invoked in my other paper which examines micro states in balance (See indifferent
time theory and my
comment below regarding “solar packets” [4] ).
**Condition II
would follow from the stipulation of Condition I but we’ve
added the additional test condition of adding some initial quantity of order at
some arbitrary time.]
In any closed system, the
available energy for doing useful work, decreases over time (8). This rule applies equally to our virtual
closed system with its entropic horizon. According to this law, a machine
would eventually accumulate entropy and cease to operate. Given these results,
we may ask the following: Why does this, our modified law applicable now to virtual closed systems, not apply to
"living machines". [The answer, is that it does not apply differently
to one or the other. Entropy applies equally to all processes inside the
system.] We then have the question, how does life avoid disorder?, and its inevitable
decline? (9)
In consideration of the foregoing principals, we can also state (or propose) that
the mere input of solar energy, of heat, does not at least in any experimental
sense, ever demonstrate that this input of energy will do useful work on the
system of molecules on planet earth (10). [This
may seem to be a rather bold statement, but it bears scrutinizing further
(below).] I have also elaborated with a comment in
quanta see my reply [23]
So this is yet another
strong, experimentally verifiable result, (also furthering our aforementioned
propositions) which supports the notion of a system that BEHAVES as though it
were closed. (And that such interaction(s)
of a hypothetical ordered state (or non-ordered state at equilibrium) with its
environment can be duly considered physically with this new virtual model and
various possible implications tested.)
Thus, if we take the definition of the second law to mean that a system
will eventually accumulate entropy, that is, quantitative non-useful energy,
then any system including a living one, should cease. (11)
Thus, we have obtained a new result, based on a virtual closed system, its
properties of being closed*, verified by our principal of equivalence (above).
That is, it does not comply with (6.1), (6.2), nor with (2) as it has no
physical means of drawing order into itself, or of increasing the useful work
energy contained within, to lower its equilibrium entropy density relative to
the outside (12) The fact that it has no intrinsic
ability to lower its entropy also is critical to its “closed” nature).
We would expect such a system to effectively demonstrate a similar measurable
potential energy density inside such a (virtual closed) space and outside,
after equilibrium Sinside = Soutside
at
sufficient time, or ≥4 b.y..This essentially defines the closed behavior of
such a space. (13)
In this regard, and in consideration of the principal of virtual closed
systems, we have experimental evidence, that perpetual energy machines
also are impossible in so called "open systems" [again on earth
no perpetual machine is possible, not even one that runs on solar energy (14)*.
[*a proposition based on a virtual entropy system proposed here, in which
the machine therefore has no means of reducing its own entropy] as well as
evidence, chemically, that energy from the sun does no useful work on the
system. (14) ..And we are again, also defining
“open systems” such that these are composed of smaller closed systems, in which
energy flows in and out through an entropic horizon (15). This can account for
why an “open system” still works to pose a theoretical limit on the possibility
that a machine can self-regulate its interior entropy- (16)]
Thus, based on this new theory, it appears that living systems composed of
molecules, do violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics (17) based on condition I and II either the system was never at
disequilibrium S(inside)=S(outside) or it would decay rapidly, to reach this
state), and further, this is based on the preponderance of experimental
evidence, e.g the failures in laboratories to show otherwise (see Zeravcic 2014, Attwater
2013, Weissbuch 2009, C Huber 1998, Haldane 1929)). Though this is not
strictly true. Living systems (which are natural, self-replicating
systems) composed of molecules also appear to violate a number of other laws,
including Fick's law of diffusions and Fourier's law of passive heat flow.
Living cells have systems for removing entropy, and they have existed for a
very long time, for all intents and purposes, in perpetuity.(18) With this new
model it can hopefully be better understood why that is.
*Sub-Conclusions: We can see that the virtual
closed system" model diagramed here allows us to resolve the original
question we asked previously: "is a perpetual energy machine possible in
an open system?" The answer is that one must consider the system
differently, and if this is the case, if it is considered as a bounded virtual
space, we can surmise that the net energy capable of doing work will decrease
inside this volume...even in so-called open systems (19).
Discussion:
The position
that life does not violate the second law is one of the most ubiquitous
statements one will find in virtually any text (web sites and also technical
papers) relating to the subjects of life and physics. (19.1)
Here is an
example:
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/Laws_of_Thermodynamics/Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics
“Some critics claim that evolution
violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because organization and complexity
increases in evolution. However, this law is referring to isolated systems
only, and the earth is not an isolated system or closed system. This is evident
for constant energy increases on earth due to the heat coming from the sun. So,
order may be becoming more organized, the universe as a whole becomes more
disorganized for the sun releases energy and becomes disordered. This connects
to how the second law and cosmology are related, which is explained well in the
video below.” (19.2)
The
statement above is generalized and is not new but represents the dogma
currently. [A position that has been only strengthened over the years by
various pioneers in the field of thermodynamics and living systems (see Schrodinger’s
“What is Life” 1944) Schrodinger virtually invented the principal of explaining
living things by his concept of “negative entropy” in which organisms extract
(or attract) lower entropy to themselves from their surroundings, but he
clearly recognized the problem confronted by the cell of lowering its internal
entropy] (Boltzman, 1866 also recognized it [2] as
critical to life). One will find only slight variations on this
statement if he searches the technical literature. Let us examine what this
argument is saying. The sun is generating vast quantities of entropy in its
conversion of its hydrogen fuel reserves to heat and also light energy.
According to this model, we can imagine that the earth is receiving some form
of useful energy, Eo , capable of doing work, and the COST of that
in accordance with the second law, is that the net system, the sun and earth
taken as a whole, create more entropy than they gain, in terms of ordering. The
order in this case would obviously represent living organisms, but could apply
to any ordered system, including inanimate machines. What this argument fails
to account for, and what I am attempting.. in pointing out here, is that when it
is portrayed in this way, we must assume that the light energy coming from the
sun is capable of doing work, it is a form of energy that is higher than the
system it is shining on, the earth, (or other planets and objects, let’s not
forget those.) This problem I am addressing can be better seen with my virtual
system diagram. We also note, that the boundary does not have to be spherical
and is only shown (this way) for convenience. It could in fact represent the boundary of
the machine, its organizational interface (with its exterior environment), thus the “entropy horizon” would not
be spherical it would be 3D and conforming to the machine’s interface.(20)
Machine = ordered systems required for its existence/operation.(20.1) And the outer
boundary is defined as everything else. I drew the spherical shape which also, best
represents organized life’s basic unit, the cell.
(We note: The
“order” in a system might actually increase, e.g. in the formation of
crystalline substances and ordered lattices. However the capacity of that
system to have energy that has a capacity to do work is diminishing. (And that
is how we are defining entropy here as well as it’s implications to the second
law.) We can simply state for these purposes that the earth, if left alone at
some theoretical instant in time, would progress towards equilibrium, owing to
the fact that the earth is continually “attempting” to reach equilibrium and
shed heat it is gaining from the sun. So it is valid to assume that for the
next unfathomable period of time- external energy, capable of doing work will
always be higher outside, as it is ENTERING the system of the earth, externally.
We can neglect, the entropy produced by the sun, or that ΔS is always positive
for the system outside in space. (21) Our question is: Does life violate the
second law? And so for these purposes these definitions should suffice. We have
not stated anything special yet about the heat energy coming from the sun
except to say that this is and must be at a higher level on the outside and is
assumed to be continuous.)
Heat is work
and work is heat, but heat only does work when the moving molecules… recall
these are vibrating, are withheld at some pressure, in other words the
molecules must be restrained from their normal motions, otherwise we simply
have waste heat, doing no work. Unfortunately, this is precisely what occurs in
nature. We do not find in nature, barriers which restrain moving molecules
laden with heat, to do work on the system. More simply put, nature imposes no
normal force against heat, quite the contrary, it passively allows heat to
escape, and it does so with high probability. So the dogmatists are merely
presenting a story which has no mechanism to function. The problem is not so
subtle, and it is the problem essentially that nature imposes no barrier, no
normal force against heat. Recall that in the very definition of work, WORK ,
W, is defined as an application of force per unit time. Or force applied
through a distance. The key to that statement is “force”. Where do we see such
a resistive force in nature? But more precisely, and this is critical, the
probability of such a force existing is prohibitively small or non-existent. So
this is in a sense, another way of stating the second law of thermodynamics. (22)
It does not
matter if we are talking about vibrating molecules or molecules cascading down
a slope, resisted and guided in their path, by the normal forces of a stream
bed. We see in this case that the molecules ARE being resisted by normal
forces. Wala! Says the dogmatist, or Eureka! What we stated was that the
probability of such a normal force barrier, appearing spontaneously to do work
is virtually zero, for all intents it is zero, particularly if we are
increasing the magnitude of W. (22.1) So in the case of a stream flowing down hill, it
has great potential to do work, but in nature, no one is there to impose a dam,
unfortunately, and in fact what the second law means is that there is no force,
no physics that will make a dam possible. The system is “rigged” against such
resistance. Thus we can see that the great potential energy of a moving stream
is wasted.
The point of
this argument is to take this knowledge and apply it to the statement “life
does not violate the second law.” Since we now know based on this new argument
I have presented here, that this is not correct. [the second law is intact as
is the general assumption of entropy increasing outside the system]. We again
consider the “micro state” , “micro” relative to the earth’s surface. Whereas
it is true that the vibrating molecules (instigated by heat from the sun) that
enter the sphere have the capacity or potential energy, we find just as the
case above, that there is no resistive force to slow their motion. There must
be a resistive normal force in order for any work to be extracted from this
potential. We also see that the probability of such a normal, resistive force
being imposed on these molecules is virtually zero i.e. the P <<<<
1 and is given by the equation. The notion that life does not violate the
second law thus has a 99.99999..+% probability of being false. (23)
As I have
already stated, this argument can be falsifiable, if the probability is
determined and is at some level that is significant. There is significant
physical evidence to support my case, however. The evidence that the energy
incident on the entropy horizon, is capable of doing work, is negative. In view
of the postulate here, the normalized force problem, we would not expect that
this energy from the sun is capable of doing work on the system of the earth’s
molecules. But there is another issue from this model. 2) we would also not
assume that the entropy in the system, and this is again defined within or at
the interface of the entropy horizon of the machine, would not continue to
accumulate. Both cases I or case II, (in
addition to the normalization force problem) would predict that under the known
understood laws, any organized or ordered system would undergo heat death. (24)
Rule: heat exchanging
or passing through an arbitrary region cannot do useful work unless it
encounters a normal force (opposing its motion.) (25)
Other discussion/references: In a recent review of the physics of
far from equilibrium biology and physics, Axel Kleidon considers Earth’s
systems that are pushed far from thermodynamic equilibrium by living things: convective
cycles, weather patterns, mantle subduction, tides, etc. This would be in
essence, condition II that we treat in this paper,
however, Kleidon is not concerning his paper with earth’s system from the
perspective of condition I, in which we attempt to answer
if theoretically, the solar energy is itself capable of doing useful work. The
solar heat driving convection, is not an isolated force. But according to
the theory I propose here, such a force would not be possible to do work
against the other surrounding forces or its own contribution. (26) It is
claimed (by one reviewer) that earth is in disequilbrium”, witness hurricanes,
tidal forces, and other forces. What is it specifically at disequilbrium with?
Is an asteroid on approach towards our solar system, at disequilibrium? No it
simply has momentum, mass times its velocity. The heating and cooling drive the
convective processes of the earth’s oceans, however, none of these winds or
tides actually move against the impetus that drives them towards dissipation.
As we have already pointed out, the stream flows downslope, unimpeded, and can
therefore do no work against the force of gravity. (It is itself, subject to
this force.) The movement of a stream would not be observed, if the earth were
not in the path of the solar radiation, absorbing the energy. So it can’t really
be seen as the “purpose” of the earth to dissipate this energy. Some tremendous
percentage of solar energy simply radiates off into space, missing the planets
(ref.) we will not, according to these principals, be able to find “natural
machines” that in fact do work, as the sun’s energy, exerting a force, does not
work against itself. [It is not possible for a force to have two simultaneous
actions.] Which can be demonstrated microscopically. (26b) It might be supposed
that turbulence builds clouds blocking the sun or cooling, much like Brownian
motion might interfere with heating or cooling. There is no “interference.”
These are taking the least path of resistance towards dissipation. And it is
truly very difficult to imagine how one can make the claim that there is some
“engine” within a natural system, speeding energy and wasting it in the least
path of resistance. No engines that I
know of, operate by offering least resistance and least work possible to effect
their surroundings. That is precisely what occurs without a resistive
force, and one cannot be found in these natural systems in the context of
doing work. (26C) [note: (see my argument#16-17 from “Indifferent
time” http://causaldistinctions.blogspot.com/2015/04/i-propose-challenge-to-maximal-flow.html
specific to the arbitrary introduction of forces into diagrams “artificially
assuming a force entering the microstate” which “in reality these are not
‘entering’ but are part of the system” and the assumption causes problems for
causality.. (26D)
Also,
a planet is not doing ‘work’ any more than an asteroid is ‘doing work’ by
deflecting the solar wind (from deeper space) and moving in its orbit. So the
question itself, that we ask here, cannot be properly defined under conditions
where these terms are not differentiated. The process by which heat is
dissipated or released also is not strictly a case where such heat is being
‘generated.’ As much as occurring, again continuously. As we note in the
‘*continuity principal’ in Fig 2]
Many of the
maximum entropy production (MEP) advocates seem to be extremely confident in
their physical results, they obviously believe that they are correct and that
such models are experimentally subtantiable. However, can these scientists
describe how MEP would apply to the problem of improving drug function in a
cell? Perhaps we are to believe that a cell model is less complex than
turbulence in a solution? If this theory of MEP truly is so widely cross-applicable
to physics, why is it not directly applicable to solving chemical problems in
drug activity? What principal of MEP is not already fully encompassed by other
theories of chemical behavior and structure? When we examine a theory like MEP
at the molecular level, we can find that there isn’t a behavior that it claims
that is verifiable, MEP is no different than passive heat flow or passive
diffusion, which have been known for 500 years. On the other hand, the theory I
propose here can be tested. We can physically measure the amount of work that
the system may do at different times, say at arbitrary states of I, II, and III
and show that the available work diminishes, in agreement with observation. I
have adapted these basic principals to a much broader application. (27) [see ref # (Lucia et al 2014) in my other archival paper “Can
constructal theory be proven…? http://causaldistinctions.blogspot.com/2015/03/is-constructal-theory-by-adrien-bejan.html
as some are apparently applying constructal theory to cancer models and
treatments, and constructal theory is a ‘preferred dissipation’ model like MEP
see my note [17] below]
Viewing a
planet as a system such as a “Giai system”, seems reasonable for the life
infused earth, but it wilts rapidly, when such a thesis is applied to the moon.
In fact, far from equilibrium dynamics does not seem to encompass radiation
from lunar soil in the same way as it does convection of an ocean. Nor it
appears would the Giai hypothesis seemingly have any bearing on an asteroid
floating between Mars and Jupiter. And yet a body such as the moon or a smaller
asteroid, reflects heat and dissipates heat from its surface, in the same
fundamental, physical manner as the earth. It would not seem unreasonable to
require that a theory must apply to all objects as these all exhibit similar
fundamental behaviors of energy exchange. These examples point out the risks of
over anthropomorphing theory to meet pre-conceived notions, particularly ones
that seem appealing to the mind or socio-poliitical or cultural aspects. Hence
the necessity to reduce the problem to elemental units, and my reference to the
passage of energy through open space. What is the purpose of open space flux of
energy through a surface? None. No Gaia hypothesis applies to such space, nor it seems a “Maximum Entropy Generator” to
the moon or our system’s asteroids. These are the objective elements of
vectoral forces. But that is the objectivity that is demanded of the physics.
No doubt, the theories advocating some aesthetic balance or drive will still
have more appeal, but the cost of that appeal is the murkiness that masks
reality and ethereal elegance.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, I believe
this theory is substantiated by empirical experience and evidence,
including many of the experiments I myself have conducted (here and elsewhere) that
shown convincing evidence that chemical processes in general, starting
with order as in the condition II described previously, lead to products
which are then successive end points leading towards products of increased
entropy and a lower capacity to do work. Most importantly, these experiments
show the lack of any resistive force, chemically resisting that path that is
intrinsic in these in vitro chemical systems.
What is that resistive force? Where does it come from? that resistive
force F (sub R) =F sub L, (28) necessary to do work, would be Critically
present to ANY equation that relates thermo to how life evades thermo currently
and in the past.
As Schrodinger remarked “
in his work, it has already been supposed that life somehow opposes second law, that is, unlike the
inanimate system, it avoids decay. It was already known that the sun supplied a
critical energy needed by life to avoid this decay, also pointed out in the
same work by Schrodinger and known to others [1]. This however, is not quiet what is at issue here. Because it
was assumed by Schrodinger that the basic physics of the second law were
intact, it was only really a matter for genetics and biology to work out the
details as Schrodinger in fact, remarks at the start of Chapter 6, “Delbruck's
molecular model, in its complete generality, seems to contain no hint as to how
the hereditary substance works, Indeed, I do not expect that any detailed
information on this question is likely to come from physics in the near may
future.” So that echoes the modern view rather precisely, minus of course the
progress that’s been accomplished in modern biology since 1944. [*5.5.15 It has
been supposed that life must operate against the second laws’ prediction for a
closed system, but it is a generally believed principal if not dogma, that it
is not violating the second law. Though what we find here, is that has depended
on both how life was defined, i.e. as a bio-machine, or how the system has been
defined.] The real question is, is life violating thermodynamics, a much
different meaning than “opposing” or “overcoming” the law, (e.g. much as
organisms resist gravity, they don’t actually violate gravity). What is not
realized by other skeptics of the second law’s applicability, but IS recognized
here, is that the system model ‘open or close’ problem, really only works for
animate systems. Only in factories (exemplified in the manufacture of highly
ordered systems like computers) do we have the proper meaning of “the exterior
system increases entropy much more than the system in which entropy is
negative. The same holds true for cells and living things. So this model is
somehow projected upon inanimate ones, to be equivalent. Add the fact that
animate is equated with inanimate, (in so many sources, Prigogine 1973, Schrodinger
1944, as an underlying assumption of physics..) and one can see the (foundation
of this largely unwavering) support for this belief. Furthermore, (and to that
point) I also believe that what is at issue here is the problem of the lack of
definition between animate and inanimate.
Notes and References
- The second law is stated more formally as “the change in entropy of
the system will always increase, OR it is always positive. δS=δQ/T≥0. (Schrodinger, “What is
Life” 1944) “(Chapter 6 LIVING MATTER EVADES THE DECAY TO
EQUILIBRIUM) When a system that is not alive is isolated or placed
in a uniform environment, all motion usually comes to a standstill very
soon as a result of various kinds of friction; differences of electric or
chemical potential are equalized, substances which tend to form a chemical
compound do so, temperature becomes uniform by heat conduction. After that
the whole system fades away into a dead, inert lump of matter. A permanent
state is reached, in which no observable events occur. The physicist calls
this the state of thermodynamical equilibrium, or of ‘maximum entropy.'”
So we can see that the ME or MEP was already clearly stated in 1944 by
Schrodinger.
1b. {5.9.15 We will further define this entropy more universally as the
system will tend towards a state in which a quantity of energy is no longer
contained such that it will spontaneously do work on the system around it,
though this is specifically in Case II, where some order exists, technically
speaking, the classical definition of entropy does not apply based on Case I,
that is a surprising implication of this virtual space and that condition. The
notion that useful work declines in a closed system is itself a man-made
imposed condition which is not apparent, or known to be apparent, in natural
systems.}
- “The general struggle for
existence of animate beings is not a struggle for raw materials – these,
for organisms, are air, water and soil, all abundantly available – nor for
energy, which exists in plenty in any body in the form of heat Q, but of a
struggle for entropy, which becomes available through the transition of
energy from the hot sun to the cold earth.” Boltzmann,
L. (1886). The second law of thermodynamics. Populare Schriften, Essay 3,
address to a formal meeting of the Imperial Academy of Science, 29 May
1886, reprinted in Ludwig Boltzmann, Theoretical physics and philosophical
problem, S. G. Brush (Trans.). Boston: Reidel.
- “Newton’s Rules of
Reasoning in Philosophy” (from Principia, editions 2nd (1713) and 3rd
(1726) tans. A Motte 1729:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica
Rule 2: “Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as
possible, assign the same causes.”
- One can, based on the
“time equivalence” principal, (I
show elsewhere) conclude that everything (in true isolated, inanimate
systems..ie natural systems), is at thermodynamic equilibrium, the only
constraints would be the amount of time and perhaps the scale of the
system in question. This means that in essence, there is no such thing as
“thermodynamic equilibrium” in an absolute sense or a physical sense, it
cannot be observed or defined. It is an artificially imposed, relativistic
statement, unlike the law of gravity or even of heat dispersion itself
(Claudius), or diffusion (Fick’s law). Equilibrium is not a dynamic
itself, it is not a tendency, unlike other physical laws. Actually,
entropy states just the opposite, natural systems tend toward
non-equilibrium. Equilibrium is simpliy an observed state, a “shelf” or
“paused state” in dis-equilibrium, which is principally why I don’t
believe it is experimentally or observationally justifiable to claim that
any system finds a state of maximum dissipation or equilibrium, that is
adding or imposing artificial conditions. We can imagine, that it is
physically analogous to a similarly absurd claim that a body at rest, a
ball lying on a table for example, is a new physical or preferred state.
There is no such law nor does this information make any predictions, and
equilibrium of moving molecules in a coffee cup are analogous to any other
motion. And further still, where does one find these equilibria? Find
these in nature do you? There are no “coffee cups” with their molecules at
equilibrium which is an exasperating point, when such an experiment is
then used to correlate to systems in nature, it is simply “begging the
question” further. This is yet another experiment to show the fallacious
logic that is currently used to support the use of current equations and
models, these apply IF one can assume such an equilibrium can exist (one
arbitrarily established by an imposed force or introduced force), these
apply (conditionally) IF some level of organization, of order exists in
order to replicate once, as many sources have presumed in their underlying
hypothesis for the origin of life based on thermodynamic principals. There
is no evidence to make this assumption, and that assumption (hopefully) is
not made here in this paper presently.
- Jeremy L. England, (2013) "Statistical
physics of self-replication" doi:10.1063/1.4818538, v 139 J. Chem.
Phys.
- England, 2013 ,”New
Physics Theory Of Life”, Natalie Wolchover, Quanta Magazine ( Jan 22, 2014)
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/
“Although entropy must increase over time in an isolated or “closed”
system, an “open” system can keep its entropy low — that is, divide energy
unevenly among its atoms — by greatly increasing the entropy of its
surroundings.”… “Life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. ”
- My comment relating to how
energy from the sun effects force balance on earth, thermodynamically. In
Quantum Magazine, May 5, 2015 at 4:08 pm “To C.H. (commentator), May 2,
2015. It is not that I'm saying things are in balance in so much as I say that
the force applied is in balance (in the cases mentioned). There is an
oppositive force of equal magnitude , I'm making that claim for specific
reasons discussed. I should probably state that it applies to the
equilibrium condition, though it's implied when I state 'normal force'
N-bank. As I diagrammed a bit more clearly:
http://causaldistinctions.blogspot.com/2015/04/i-propose-challenge-to-maximal-flow.html
In such a force diagram, we're not talking about conditions for "all
of time" or even 1 billion years, but it is assumed for example, that
a book resting on a table is in equilibrium, in an interval (of virtual
time), and thus experiences an equal and opposite force pushing back.
However, we also know that the third law applies in non equilibrium, the
net force does not have to be equal magnitude since it is only
proportional to the mass , ball 'A' can impose a force, 'ma' but ball
"B", a smaller 'ma' so the net force might be highly scewed in
the other direction, and b will go backwards, hence non equilibrium. But
if you notice I am also making the case" for molecular based theory
of a macro state, which you'll notice is being negated by constructal Law
and Bejan basically states "it isn't necessary to consider molecular
theory to obtain macro behaviour", which I paraphrase, but he's
dispensing with particles and I'm showing why that's wrong.But returning
to equilibrium condition, let's assume the river bank is more or less in
equilibrium, in this state the force opposing the water is equal and
opposite. The interesting notion is the causality of how that equilibrium
was achieved. If you consider that the greater source of non equilibrium
is the sun, and if we imagine there are packets" of this energy
incident on our planet, which translate to the motions of storms and..
rivers then any non equilibrium from that equilibrium state, is thus some
unit of that packet, it is not ridiculous to say it is molecular scale, as
you're aware of planetary scale weather theories based on molecular
theory, ie how well CO2 absorbs sunlight, or how water dipole effects its
heat absorption more than say, co2 (no dipole) or any other gas really.
But the big point of my derivation, its implication, is only to state that
the non equilibrium is due to these packets- the non equilibrium of the
river is caused by Fluxes in these energies, NOT by the river itself, nor
by the change in the river bank. There is no such thing as constructal law
governing a river as we have just defined the rivers motion as the sum of
these "pushes" from the sun, (being counterbalanced by normal
forces of the bank and river bottom) so these are as much relevant to the
rivers (acting) force than what we observe (on earth),..a river is not a
discreet, defined thing in terms of this physics.(I should also say that
this kind of "being a stickler for precision", in causality is
relevant to the thermo issues here, but also to the problem of equating
animate and the inanimate..which you'll note is assumed in the article
above, and by maximal flow laws).
- G. Sewell, A Second Look
at the Second Law, Appl. Math Lett. (2011) “Anyone who has made such an
argument is familiar with the standard reply: the Earth is an open system,
it receives energy from the sun, and entropy can decrease in an open
system, as long as it is “compensated’’ somehow by a comparable or greater
increase outside the system…”Of course the whole idea of compensation,
whether by distant or nearby events, makes no sense logically: an
extremely improbable event is not rendered less improbable simply by the
occurrence of ‘‘compensating’’ events elsewhere.”
Paul Peter Urone, College Physics,
Brooks/Cole, 2001 (via Sewell paper). “It is true that the evolution of life
from inert matter to its present forms represents a large decrease in entropy
for living systems. But it is always possible for the entropy of one part of
the universe to decrease, provided the total change in entropy of the universe
increases.”
Angrist, L. Hepler, Order and
Chaos, Basic Books, 1967 (via Sewell paper). “In a certain sense the
development of civilization may appear contradictory to the second law. . . .
Even though society can effect local reductions in entropy, the general and
universal trend of entropy increase easily swamps the anomalous but important
efforts of civilized man. Each localized, man-made or machine-made entropy
decrease is accompanied by a greater increase in entropy of the surroundings,
thereby maintaining the required increase in total entropy.”
Problems: Sewell correctly points to the problem which is being
largely ignored, that of the apparent non-probabilistic tendency of life.
However, he leaves the question open as to what might be entering the system.
He also does not apparently address the expected and obvious counter argument
that is present in a discipline outside of physics, e.g. modern Darwinism or
modern synthesis-MKK
- Brig Klyce, (updated 2015),
http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm“Sometimes
people say life violates the second law. This is not the case..we know of
nothing in the universe that violates that law.”
- Nick Lane “New Research
Rejects 80-year Theory of ‘Primordial Soup’ as the Origin of Life” http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/PressRelease/pressReleaseId-67977.html
“Textbooks have it that life arose from organic soup and that the first
cells grew by fermenting these organics to generate energy in the form of
ATP. We provide a new perspective on why that old and familiar view won't
work at all,” said team leader Dr Nick lane from University College
London. “We present the alternative that life arose from gases (H2, CO2,
N2, and H2S) and that the energy for first life came from harnessing
geochemical gradients created by mother Earth at a special kind of
deep-sea hydrothermal vent – one that is riddled with tiny interconnected
compartments or pores.”
- JBS Haldane (1929)
Primordial Soup theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._S._Haldane
- Avshalom C. Elitzur (1994)
Let There Be Life: Thermodynamic Reflections on Biogenesis and Evolution.”
“…The evolution of any type of self-replicating systems, even the simplest
ones, is shown to be highly efficient in extracting, recording and
processing information about the environment. A variety of related issues
yield some surprising conclusions when discussed in the thermodynamic
context.
- Claudia Huber and Gunter
Wachtersha“Peptides by Activation of Amino Acids with CO on(Ni,Fe)S
Surfaces: Implications for the Origin of Life” 31 JULY 1998 VOL 281
SCIENCE
- S. W. Fox and K. Dose,
1977 “Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life” Dekker, New York.
- See Kleidon’s “ Life,
hierarchy, and the thermodynamic machinery of planet Earth” Axel Kleidon
doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2010.10.002
- John Whitfield, Complex
systems: Order out of chaos Nature 436(7053):905--907 (August 2005) “Can
the behaviour of complex systems from cells to planetary climates be
explained by the idea that they're driven to produce the maximum amount of
disorder?”
- See Kleidon’s et al, (page
4) “The following two papers deal with hydrological processes on land.
Zehe et al. (2010) evaluate the effect of preferential flow associated with biogenic soil structures on
hydrological fluxes using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. They show that
these structures act to maximize dissipation of chemical potential
gradients within the soil.” (Axel Kleidon et al. Maximum entropy
production in environmental and ecological systems Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B
(2010) 365, 1297–1302)
I have already commented on theories such as these, Kleidon
et al. The premise is that one might obtain data in this case, on “hydrological
fluxes” such that there is some base line state. Then, presumably, over some
period of time there would be another state, one in which there is a shift
towards some other stable state. But one can see that in this experiment, the
assumption has to be made that the system will progress from where it was in an
initial condition to some other state, presumably a measurable rate of flux,
etc in another condition. That presumes that there is some other physical
reason for this change in state to occur, which further assumes, as I’ve
already argued, that it is some OTHER condition or state that the system is not
already in.* In other words, why is the MEP not already realized in condtion I
or the initial state? as a function of it set up as a physical system, BEFORE
it was set up to be measured? These are the experimental questions for the
theory of MEP and other so called optimization theory.
We also see in the quote I have provided, the rather
disturbing realization that it resembles very much maximal flow theory, with
its ‘preferential flow’ maximizing energy dissipation in ‘biogenic soils’. [We
further note that in fact “figure 1a” of this paper (Kleidon’s 2010 ‘MEP..’) apparently
deals with a phenomenon described as “temporal evolution into steady state”
which depicts a change in a system (not specified). What is also interesting,
is the use of figure 1b, which depicts two resistors in a circuit. Are we to
imagine that the resistors are now looked at chemically? Since the actual
resistance of the wires is a function of their chemical composition, the type
of metal etc. and we might also see such a system simply as a chemical one, subject
to rust and degradation, but we can see also, that there is no preferred view
of such systems. What is it physically that makes the circuit a physically
distinct system from its molecular parts? Entropy could, in theory, be
considered for just the wires, or just the chemical composition of the atoms in
those wires, there is no justification here for any particular view.]
Kleidon et al, in the paper, (see page 1) also offer this
working definition of the second law but also what they mean by an example of
the maximum entropy principal (MEP): “The second law states that for isolated
systems that do not exchange energy or mass with their surroundings, the
entropy of that system can only increase. Over time, this law translates into an evolutionary direction by which a system
evolves to a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, which is characterized by the
absence of gradients in temperature or chemical species.” It would appear
that they are simply stating, or restating that the “entropy of the system can
only increase” thus reach a maximum. Again, whereas I don't disagree that a
system of molecules will diffuse until that diffusion stops, this doesn’t
appear to really be a “maximum”. Can we not now examine THIS system, the one in
equilibrium? In reality there are no examples of systems in perfect equilibrium
on this planet. Every known mechanical contraption, every system we invent,
must degrade, none are safe. So the so called equilbirum of molecules in a
container, are not really in an equilibrium if one simply changes the time
frame, in that context such a theory simply doesn’t add up to finer scrutiny.
And the same causal analysis I apply to the non-equilibrium of a container,
also applies to natural systems, since after all, that is really the main
purpose of MEP, to discuss natural systems of the earth, convection, winds,
storms, and others. It would be highly untenable to examine a river or vortex,
and state that such a system is now in some sort of equilibrium. Based on what
observation? Or law? We could just as easily state, as Clausius did, that heat
is lost from a system over time until it reaches equilibrium with the
surroundings. But we can also see such a view is relative. What are the
surroundings? The kettle cools to the termperature of the room, but the room is
still maintained at a higher termperature than the outdoors. It is a relative
concept and we would not really state that the temperature of the kettle has
reached some sort of minimum, not in a generalized sense as this simply
wouldn’t be verifiable. Without any relative specifications we don’t have a
system to speculate upon. As I’ve already stated, there is no difference
between the arbitrary states of I,II and III.. But this statement is not
physically differentiable from “the ball has now come to rest on the table.”
That is just as true as the beaker has reached equilibrium. But neither of
these facts by themselves, provides a theory that predicts a future state. We find that such relative states, though
possibly useful in applied situations, are not useful in our causal analysis of
virtual closed systems and implications to the Second Law.
- Pascal R, Pross A: The
nature and mathematical basis for material stability in the chemical and
biological worlds, J Syst Chem 2014, 5:3
- Isabelle Weissbuch et al.,
“Racemic β-Sheets as Templates of Relevance to the Origin of Homochirality
of Peptides: Lessons from Crystal Chemistry”Acc. Chem. Res., 2009, 42 (8),
pp 1128–1140 DOI: 10.1021/ar900033k
- James Attwater “In-ice
evolution of RNA polymerase ribozyme activity” Nature Chemistry, 2013.
DOI: 10.1038/NCHEM.1781 Note: Their
conclusion regarding RNA replication (2013) in an associated press release
of the paper was the following: "It's great progress, but the result
still comes far short of a molecule that can copy itself. For one thing,
the ribozyme tended to stop short of the end of the molecule it was
copying, mostly because the two fell out of contact."
- Strother, 2007, “Lectures”
Boston College site: https://www2.bc.edu/~strother/GE_146/lectures/14.html
“The second law, therefore seems to violate what we see happening with in
biological systems that appear to create more ordered systems over time.
And the chemistry of the evolutionary process involves the exchange of
energy in a system, so it is subject to the second law. We get around this
problem by defining the "system" that is subject to the second
law as including the Sun and Earth - thus, the energy arriving from the sun
and its interaction with Earth's (biological) surface results in an
overall entropy increase, even though, locally, on the Earth's surface,
biology causes an apparent decrease in entropy.”
- Regarding the whole
Sun-Earth system and “getting around the problem by defining the ‘system’
that is subject to the second law..”, I’m reminded of this very issue
today (in a comment section I participated in, (see link to “Quanta” below) It goes like this. I stated: “a
system of molecules lacks the capacity to remove entropy” The answer (an
actual one I received): “MK, Think of a refrigerator, the refrigerator
operates between two reservoirs, and its waste heat is pumped out.”
Undiswayed, the commentator then
described how molecules in sea water, e.g. salt gradients are examples, of how
massive groups “pump entropy” into space during their heating and cooling
cycles, (this presumably would lower entropy by creating crystals, which as
I’ve described above, is not actually reducing ‘entropy’ the way we have
defined it here, in a better form.) but I went on to explain this in more
detail see below (I respond on Quanta May 5,2015
- I respond (5.5.15) on
Quanta see Emily Singer “How Structure Evolved in The Primordial Soup”
April 146, 2015 https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150416-how-structure-evolved-in-the-primordial-soup/
May
5, 2015 at 4:57 pm Jon,
it is not so much the details of “how” in the model you discuss, but the
relative differences in entropy or disorder that I’m referring to. The earth is
in a state of shedding order, and heat, it is “trying” to reach equilibrium,
and if we imagine that the sun is not inputting energy, then the earth’s
conveyors and salt density gradients would progress towards equilibrium. That,
on a global scale is what is occurring in a simple bench top beaker system with
a collection of molecules. But that relative disorder is key because you’re
assuming that clusters of molecules in one region, will have “advantage” over
others, when in fact each cluster is “trying’ to rob energy, i.e. increase
entropy of the other cluster, as in a salt density gradient trying to diffuse
towards another region around it. In such unbounded states you have a real
theoretical problem of showing feasibility of advantaged or stable gradients of
molecules, especially ever achieving useful polymers, as we know that useful
polymers in beakers are degraded. Storms and ocean density gradients encourage
mass scale mixing and molecular diffusion, working against order. What evidence
might there be to say these natural forces/processes you mention do not
increase disorder? It is a fascinating question.
- This
paper makes testable assertions, a primary one being that the construction
of constructs, i.e. in nature, via absorption of external energy, the sun
or geothermal, might result in products but these products are not of the
sufficient entropy to lead to other products. As the model shows, the entropy is always higher outside the
horizon, than inside, which is measurable [entropy must drop externally,
(the net entropy i.e. the sun or of space) before molecules can propagate
outwardly or heat can flow]. The difference is that this “Virtual
Closed System” Fig 1 is
occurring within an OPEN system, with copious energy (sunlight) entering
from the outside. [No one ever observes that the chemicals on their
shelves “improve” with age. Nor do the products they generate. The
downhill tendencies, the entropy of these bench chemistries are already
well known and not surprising to most chemists. One would expect even more
accelerated entropy production in nature.] They have excessive entropy
contained within these systems, and the reason for this it is
hypothesized, is the lack of a normal force, Fn. Regarding the
self-assembly from inanimate, there have already been attempts made over
100 years ago by Traube in “La biologie Synthetique” (1912) in bizarre
experiments with manganese. So other researchers have been attempting and
failing in this for over 100 years.
- The consequence of the presence of this normalization force is
that the passive flow of heat would then do work, and further, that it
would generate a different form of heat, heat which has even less capacity
(a net capacity) to do less work on the system than before, or perhaps
none at all. The passive flow of
heat from the sun, and the earth’s convective belts,
should in principal do no useful work, against the surrounding system.
Thus it would generate no quantity of this ‘heat’ a lower capacity for
work. This ‘normalizing force’, FL would also have with it a proportional unit of
heat, QL, generated at a specific rate of heat production
ΔQL per unit change in time. We might view the “test
subject” or test matter or structure inside the entropy horizon (either
conforming to its outer surface, or surrounding it as the sphere
diagramed) as a hypothetical ‘structure’ composed of essentially force
vectors in motion presumably from the convective forces set in motion by
the sun’s energy. If we then imagine that the convective forces are
essentially Brownian à macroscopic turbulence and massive vortex, and
that some small quantity of this can be envisioned that is moving through
a space, then we might imagine any one of these as having a potential to
form order but also a potential to decrease it. The probability would be
equal for both states. We also note that the ‘test subject’ does no work
against its surroundings, since the Fn this vector, is a resultant of
surrounding vectors, much like a stream of energy flowing. The appearance
of order of crystallization in such
a conveyor system, can be calculated to be of higher order but this is an
imaginary, non relevant value (as we’ve defined earlier), as its reference
is virtual (to a hypothetical system in which it is not formed). In
reality, the crystal formation is simply lower order, ‘in flow’ or ‘in
stream’ vectorally, with its surroundings. Based on this diagrammatic
experiment, we would not expect that such massive crystalline formations
would in any way generate F subL against its surroundings. Rather, we’d
expect that any quantity of order set up by these vectors, or artificially
added to the system and placed within the entropy horizozn, to exhibit some
loss of order, irreversibly over time, such that the energy it radiates is
of lower capacity to do work on the surroundings. But we note also, that
in th is case, no FL is present.
It can be imagined that
the particles in motion (see radiative diagram in Fig. 3, below) are given some
momentum from the sun, that is, they have some energy available EA
or ES (EA=ES) meaning that this is the source
of the heat or paritlce motion (and labeling differently from waste heat which
is of a lower form), which does in fact exert a pressure for example, in the
atmosphere as it energizes and translates motion to molecules there. What is
not shown but can be envisioned, is the same EA net from the sun,
say some quantity of this heat, being instead incident upon a floating dust
cloud. In this case we see some of the EA being only slightly
diminished and continuing onward as it is deflected, whereas some is absorbed
by the particles (by direct collision of the energetic particles with atoms in
the dust) and is translated into motion of the dust and radiated heat QN
loss. So the net energy is always, in the case of the earth or the dust cloud,
essentially QN+ EA2 (net ('final'))+kinetic motion = EA1
(net) 'starting' from sun. But in the case of the earth, there appears to be a
normalized force FL that is imposed and this imposition has some
probability that is >>0, where the probability of a FN in this
case is virtually 0. What I show earlier in the case of “indifferent time” is
that these incidents of normalized force, be they a normal force of a river
bank, the water resisting pressure of the particle in momentum ( a packet of
solar energized particles exerting a force) or the land, these forces do not
appear to anything but passive, and thus only help move the energy EA
in the least resistive pathway available. (Much as we’d expect of the particles
in a nebular dust cloud) they simply excite and then relax as energy is
reemitted back into space.) What then is the difference? This is a key issue.
*The available energy to
do work, must be proportional to some average number of particles N with some
average energy E. But if we trace such a “packet” after incidence upon the
atmosphere, or on the magnetic field, it (the net EA) will be
diminished in each drop of the “energy ladder”. The massive quantity of heat
radiated from the earth cannot be completely waste heat, it must have some
fraction of ES + a lower form of heat QN).
Fig. 3 The earth is constantly attempting to
shed its heat energy absorbed from the sun and reach a thermal equilibrium or
maximum entropy. The constant absorption of Available Energy, EA from the sun
prevents this (yellow) by driving essentially the disequilibrium in the
conveyor which I depict as an energy ladder. I have not shown the “entropy
horizon” diagram here (for simplicity). Normally, the available energy of the
sun cascades along a series of steps, ejecting waste heat (that can’t do work)
QN in each step, and the remaining available heat proceeds along until it
eventually radiates to space. Not shown are the numerous steps, but clearly,
each step is robbing the available energy, the active heat (ES = EA) of its
capacity to do work on the system. I show also with the wiggly line across a
step” a normalization force or FL, which also exhibits a unique QL at some
special rate of loss. What should be diagramed is essentially the partilces
bunching up against a wall, forming a gradient or pressure’ experienced by the
FL normalization force, which also extracts some proportional amount of work WL
not shown.