[_ Old Earth _] ±

[Guest]

±

 

[Drew]

Re: Entropy -vs- Order.

I am not sure the question is legitimately framed. We know that entropy increases in closed systems. We know that order can and does increase in open systems. So I do not see how its a matter of "either-or" in a generalized sense. One needs to be talk about a particular context. In the context of our earth, one is not dealing with a closed system. The earth is an open system with a significant source of low-entropy energy input - sunlight. Structural order can increase in such a context.

So as I understand, the notion that increasingly complex structures evolve "naturally" is entirely consistent with the law of entropy. I am not sure this is directly relevant to your post.

 

[Guest]

±

 

[BobRyan]

Re: Entropy -vs- Order.

The transition from PE Potential Energy to KE kenetic energy to equilibrium conforms to the law for entropy in all systems.

But that decay sequence can be intelligently manipulated through design so that within the overal loss of usuable energy there exists some increased PE or order or design. Like a steam driven train going up hill. The burning of fuel provides the overall scope of entropy (even when the sun is shining on the other side of the planet) for the train to gain PE going up hill and still exhibit overall increase in entropy -- THOUGH we have a sun besides.

The increase in entropy rarely needs to account for "the sun shining" to see the increase.

Having said that -- Dark Matter and Dark Energy are simply "devices in logic" terms for "the unknown" parts of our cosmological equation. We tree them as matter and as energy has a handy way to translate it into a "known" but nobody has ever had "dark matter" under review in the lab nor produced "dark energy" in a reaction of any kind. It is simply our black-box "miracle goes here" to "get the following effect".

Don't get too excited about "its properties" because according to the math 90% plus of all matter in the universe would have to be "dark matter" to account for what we see in terms of galaxy groupings etc. But what does that tell you? It says for every kg of matter we weigh in the lab we should be able to find 9Kg of dark matter laying around -- and we don't.

So clearly -- "we are missing something".

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

Re: Entropy -vs- Order.

I have C 4 C on my ignore list, but I can tell by his poll question that he entirely missed the point of the law of thermodynamics.

Entropy deals with closed systems. You can arguably say that the universe as a whole is a closed system, or or solar system, or whatever you want. What the law says is that the NET effect is disorder. This does not mean in the least bit that more orderly things can't be developed within that system.

Based on perspective, we can envision our situation as an "open system" (not technically, but for our purposes) due to the energy we get from the sun and things of the sort. The net entropy of our solar system is increasing, but that doesn't mean that some order can't be made within it.

Hell, lets take a single star for example. We can easily say that the star has a net increase in entropy. However, the fusion that causes this net entropy creates more complex atoms in the core of a star by this process. The net effect may be an increase, but a portion of this process yields less entropy in certain areas of this system.

 

[John]

Re: Entropy -vs- Order.

I will create another thread don what views on The second law.

 

[BobRyan]

Re: Entropy -vs- Order.

Good idea.

Entropy is like an "extreme tax" system where EVERY transaction is taxed and EVERY entity MUST engage in transactions to exist. It is a system where the resources going out as "tax" never come back as input into the system.

But even this is not a sufficient analogy because in a monetary system you always can "accept money" however it is NOT true that every system on earth only "benefits" from the sun.

In fact aside from the hydrocycle everything is destroyed by the sun over time except (and to the extent) that it is intelligently designed for DEFENSE AGAINST the sun.

The Earth needs a defense against CMEs so we have our magnetic field and Ozone.

Humans have pigment -- but this only holds out briefly as a defense -- it is easily overwhelmed by the suns rays resulting in burns and even if burns are prevented -- you still get the problem of dehydration and if you survive that then you have the long term effect of cancer.

Plants are "designed" at a much more complex level to transform direct sunlight into "usuable energy" but almost nothing else is -- and even plants will wilt and burn under direct sunlight. You need a "living planet BALANCE" to get plant growth -- where the mix of the hydrocycle and sun light intensity and soil content is "tuned" for life.

The bottom line is that even in the most basic of designed systems - water evaporates and even in that LOCAL transformation the 2nd law applies and entropy INCREASES without having to "go to the sun" to balance the equation.

Then when the water vapor forms again and condenses we have yet ANOTHER step that demonstrates the second law and entropy INCREASES without having to "go to the sun" to have the 2nd law apply and show INCREASED entropy.

All this shows is INCREASED entropy at the local level EVEN in one of the rare cases of a system that is designed to USE the suns energy directly.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Re: Entropy -vs- Order.

Why do you think entropy is declining in the biosphere, Bob? Do you know why local decreases in entropy (such as occurs on our planet) can happen?

 

[Guest]

±