Customer Discussions > Science forum

Creationists are trying to rewrite the Laws of Thermodynamics!


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1226-1250 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2011 5:36:10 PM PST
Deckard says:
Christopher Haynes said:
"Us Creationists, we're stunned."

Oh, by the way, since you are having such a wonderful time claiming that Fermi and Hawking are wrong, why is it that you still believe in the bible, when it has proven to be wrong, too?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2011 4:57:30 PM PST
Papawaron says:
RAS says :

I have the Hawking book, but do not recall the point which you remarked.

Hi Robert........that is because Hawking never said, as CH quoted, :"Processes would run in reverse if the universe were to shrink under it's own gravity"

CH is a liar and a scoundrel, and unremmittingly and willfully ignorant.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2011 4:23:02 PM PST
Re O'regan, 11-9 9:23 AM: Interesting post. Analogy: If you throw a ball into the air, it may come back down -- or, if you have thrown it hard enough, it won't. (Ignoring air resistance, of course.) More to the point, before the increasing rate of expansion of the universe was found, the question of whether it would stop expanding and eventually collapse upon itself was very much an issue. So, what about entropy? The collapsed state could well be at a lower temperature than that which prevailed at the big bang -- so the second law would not be violated by such a collapse.

I have the Hawking book, but do not recall the point which you remarked.

Posted on Nov 9, 2011 4:21:35 PM PST
SinSeeker says:
Us Creationists want to propose a New Law (note capitals for emphasis)

Its called the Creationist Law of Unrelenting Bulldung - "In the absence of any real substantive findings, a bounded Haynes system can state one and only one idea."

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2011 3:49:46 PM PST
A. Caplan says:
Christopher Haynes says: So our statement "In the absence of supernatural forces, a bounded system can attain one and only one stable state." It still hasnt been refuted sciencewise. Its called the Creationist Law of Stable States.
>That's because science already has the laws of thermodynamics and do not bother studying non-scientific posits.

Posted on Nov 9, 2011 2:58:51 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 9, 2011 3:00:18 PM PST
1) Sorry for misspelling your name or handle
2) Yes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolf_Landauer
I first came accross this idea in a thermodynamics lecture - As far as I know it's serious physics.

4) Your logic takes the form of 'A baseball bat is not the same as a small black flying mammal therefore a baseball bat cannot be black.' and your logic has a gap. Just because thermodynamic entropy is completely different to entropy in the context of information theory, that doesn't preclude information having an equivalence to thermodynamic entropy.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2011 2:00:43 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 9, 2011 2:04:54 PM PST
noman says:
1) NO-man, Odyssey book 9
2) You're reference is 'philosophy'. Are there any physicists that believe this?
3) I may well have misunderstood you. Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. :)
4) IMO the source *was* the conclusion. It was certainly more detailed than anything I could provide in Amazon.com posts. However if anyone is interested in my opinion then (outside of my field) No, I don't think the second law of thermodynamics as used by biologists or physicists has anything to do with information theory (or at least they can not be used interchangeably when talking about biology) And I agree completely with the source I provided that it's a mistaken analogy to talk about 'disorder' or 'chaos' when talking about entropy.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2011 1:13:54 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 9, 2011 1:21:53 PM PST
Ah Norman, you've quoted a source without drawing any conclusions. If you think that your source contradicts what I said, then you appear to have drawn an incorrect conclusion.

The term entropy in information theory is completely different to thermodynamic entropy, just like 'bat' the flying mammal is different to 'bat' the item of sporting equipment or 'squash' the vegetable is different to 'squash' the ball game or 'saw' past tense of see is different to 'saw' the wood working tool. These words, although they are spelt and pronounced exactly the same way, were never meant to even imply that they were the same thing. Entropy in information theory was never meant to be equivalent to entropy in thermodynamics even though they are spelt and pronounced exactly the same way.

Not withstanding that, many researchers believe that there is an equivalence between information and thermodynamic entropy.

Here is another source if you are interested in learning about it.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information-entropy/

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2011 12:34:47 PM PST
Rev. Otter says:
not sure why you're still typing. we obviously can't read and respond.

you know, since computers and information networks don't exist, due to the continued failures of science and all.

Posted on Nov 9, 2011 12:05:08 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 9, 2011 12:17:58 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2011 11:53:36 AM PST
Aardwizz says:
Christopher Haynes says:
Us Creationists, we're shakin our heads.
Cant nobody read?
-------------------------------------------

Before you criticise another's reading comprehension, look to your own first. Some wise guy once said, "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone". Perhaps you've heard that one? You might try living it.

I'm agreeing with other posters here: you're either a troll or a Poe. You aren't here for honest discussion because you don't discuss honestly. You won't listen, so there's no use trying to tell you something. "There are none so blind as those who will not see".

õ¿õ¬

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2011 11:05:46 AM PST
noman says:
**Entropy as used in thermodynamics and entropy as used in information theory are apparently not the same thing.**

'Disorder' in Thermodynamic Entropy
http://entropysite.oxy.edu/boltzmann.html

"... "There are two requisites for entropy change in chemistry. An increase in thermodynamic entropy is enabled in a process by the motional energy of molecules (that, in chemical reactions, can arise from the energy released from a bond energy change). However, entropy increase is only actualized if the process results in a larger number of arrangements (microstates) for the system's energy, i.e., a final state that involves the most probable distribution for that energy under the new constraints." [That probable distribution of Boltzmann is identical to Shannon's.]

"The two requisites, energy and probability, are both necessary for thermodynamic entropy change; neither is sufficient alone. In sharp contrast, information theory (often misleadingly called information "entropy") is alone sufficient for its mathematical purposes, depending only on -k ∑ pi log pi , where k is an arbitrary constant that is not required to involve energy."

Frank L. Lambert, J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 1548-1550, http://entropysite.oxy.edu/ConFigEntPublicat.pdf..."

Posted on Nov 9, 2011 10:32:24 AM PST
Well, order, information and entropy of state are suposedly all equivalent and can be expressed in the same units. Information can suposedly be used to change matter from one state to a lower entropy state using a Maxwell's demon type mechanism where the demon uses his knowledge of the matter to know when to open his microscopic gate. Some researchers have calculated the 'conversion ratio' from bits to Joules per Kelvin. I don't know how you would go about testing this theory experimentally though.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/information.html

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2011 10:18:44 AM PST
noman says:
RE: "Socrates says:
No, creationists merely attempt to explain thermodynamic concepts to evolutionists. Evolutionists have a habit of confusing thermodynamics as applied to the formation of order in for example table salt, with the formation of information (knowledge) recorded in biological systems in for example proteins and DNA."

**Please indicate what units of measure you are using for 'information' or 'order' in your thermodynamics formula.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2011 10:08:03 AM PST
Socrates: <<Evolutionists have a habit of confusing thermodynamics as applied to the formation of order in for example table salt, with the formation of information (knowledge) recorded in biological systems in for example proteins and DNA.>>

Right. So we finally get to the meat 8 pages in. Here's the problem with the simplistic application of the second law's "arrow of time" towards inevitable disorder is that it applies to closed systems. It emphatically does not apply to energy dispersive systems, such as planets in orbit around an energy spewing star. Look at the swirl of weather in our atmosphere - and in other planets, such as Jupiter's great red spot (a soliton wave of self organizing structure that has persisted for centuries). Empirically, energy dispersive systems create order out of chaos all the time. For example, the Miller Urey result is an on-point example of how molecular self assembly happens in energy dispersive environments, creating the full suite of amino acids, lipids, organic molecules, sugars, and even primitive nucleotides from a handful of basic universal compounds. Other examples include the one you provide yourself: crystal growth. Crystal seeding is creating organization from entropy in LOCAL contradiction of the second law. This happens during phase change in energy dispersive systems.

A nice abstract example of self organization in an energy dispersive system is the spontaneous formation of oscillons in sand table physics experiments when the box of sand is vibrated at the right frequency. Oscillons come in positive and negative polarity (convex or concave). Opposites attract and like oscillons repel - just like in electromagnetism. This attraction/repulsion "field" between oscillons in the vibrated sand obeys in the inverse square law - just like electromagnetism. This whole isomorph of electromagnetism spontaneously emerges out of jiggling sand with oscillons forming chains and "molecules" of spontaneous interaction (accumulating structure and information along the way) - and disappears when the vibration motor under the box of sand is turned off. Where did those structures and information come from? They self-organized out of complexity engendered by the energy dispersion itself. It's a very interesting tabletop model of this important and universal phenomenon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillon

I feel it's important to stress, again, that none of this violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics because energy dispersive systems are OPEN systems. Globally, the second law is obeyed. The local creation of order via generative complexity is paid elsewhere. On Earth, much of the entropy cost is "paid" by the Sun which is accumulating entropy on a titanic scale compared to the Earth.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2011 9:41:53 AM PST
Robert says:
No, creationists merely attempt to explain thermodynamic concepts to evolutionists. Evolutionists have a habit of confusing thermodynamics as applied to the formation of order in for example table salt, with the formation of information (knowledge) recorded in biological systems in for example proteins and DNA.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2011 9:23:46 AM PST
Robert A. Saunders says: "the universe could stop expanding because of gravitational attraction (and start contracting for the same reason)," - If the universe starts contracting, then it will keep going until the universe shrinks back to a singularity, then the entropy of the universe will have reduced to what it was at the big bang. Any reduction in the total entropy of the universe is by definition, a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

"none of this has anything to do with processes in general running backwards." Actually, until recently it was a popular theory among physicists that processes would run in reverse if the universe were to shrink under it's own gravity. Steven Hawkin describes the theory in his first book, 'A Brief History of Time'.

http://www.physicsintrouble.iwarp.com/GHHS_TimeRunsBackwards.html

Posted on Nov 9, 2011 6:14:19 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 9, 2011 8:02:42 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2011 5:55:22 AM PST
noman says:
Had a roommate in college who was:
1) Hard Core Catholic
2) Physics major (very very good at it, btw)
3) Produced a beautiful and correct (in terms of engineering/physics) description of the City of God. I mostly recall his calculations on how high the celestial walls would have to be to keep the atmosphere from spilling over. He also did heat loss calculations based on the conductivity of streets paved with gold.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2011 5:50:51 AM PST
noman says:
I'm looking for any exceptions to 2nd law and can't find one. Doesn't mean it's not in the literature, but nothing yet. OTOH I am finding support for thermodynamics, esp. 2nd law (there are also video's on Cosmology & 2nd law, statistical mechanics & 2nd law, etc):

The Second Law and Quantum Physics
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/500

About the Lecture
In this often droll lecture on a very abstract subject, Charles Bennett explores entropy, "one of my long loves," and how it relates to quantum information. He first reminds his audience that such information is reducible to qubits, a two-state system that can exist in a superposition of states -- such as the polarized photon. Bennett believes that "quantum mechanics helps resolves the paradox or puzzle of the origin of the second law" of thermodynamics-the irreversible increase of entropy. Classical science might invoke chaos dynamics or environmental effects to explain entropy. The quantum way of viewing it involves entanglement.

In classical mechanics, when two subsystems in a definite state interact "by some deterministic reversible interaction," there will be a definite output for each subsystem. "The entropy of the whole thing will be 0+0=0." But while the entropy output of two quantum systems interacting might be 0, the individual subsystems manage to have "as much entropy as they could possibly have." This is due to entanglement, "a state of the whole system that cannot be described by attributing states to its parts. Two entangled photons can be said to be in a definite state of sameness even though neither has a polarization of its own." Bennett acknowledges "this is an idea that's hard to explain to many people," although he believes that back in 1967, during the Summer of Love, many people "could understand this from an intuitive sense, if not mathematically."

Bennett plays with the famous evanescence of quantum information, noting that the photons illuminating him fill up the room with "optical replicas of the shape of my nose." But where do they go? He says, "If no record is made of which path a photon follows through an interferometer, or if a record is made but then unmade, the photons will have followed a superposition of both paths. Putting it in slightly theological terms, after the experiment is over, even God doesn't remember which path it followed."

Most classical information, such as "a pattern of snowflakes or grains of rice in last night's dinner," is impermanent, though occasionally frozen by a fossil-like process, Bennett says. It's like a medallion he saw in a flea market: "In 1832, on this spot, nothing happened." But even if information in our physical world is doomed to vanish, in spite of our digital-age efforts to duplicate everything, "the particular physics of our universe" viewed from the perspective of quantum dynamics, seems to "evolve in a complexity-increasing manner, under appropriate conditions," concludes Bennett.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2011 5:42:16 AM PST
noman says:
I'm not sure off the top of my head (there's also some dispute about whether he actually said this). I *think* he was referring to a French ambassador.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2011 5:24:33 AM PST
Aardwizz: <<In short, your kids have two "Creationist Laws" that are in conflict: If there is only one stable state, then no unstable state can appear from which work can be created.>>

Bravo, a tour de force.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2011 5:05:09 AM PST
Aardwizz says:
Christopher Haynes says:
And what's not been refuted is this: "In the absence of supernatural forces, a bounded system can attain one and only one stable state." The Creationist Law of Stable States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, enough horseplay.

Whether you realize it or not, your kids are essentially defining "Equilibrium", and attempting to state - WITHOUT PROOF - that there can be only one equalibrium state for a closed system.

This "law" breaks down on two counts:
(1) Some systems are not dynamic. I gave an ealier example of diamonds and graphite. Both exists - forever - in "equalibrium" with the atmosphere at room temperature, yet one is technically more "stable" than the other. That is, it has a lower degree of entropy. You attempted to hand-wave off this exception as "metastable" - but it IS a valid EXCEPTION TO YOUR "LAW". Whether you admit it (or realize it) or not.

(2) Even in dynamic states, such as your tank of air (or, better - liquid water in equalibrium with water vapor in a sealed bottle) - BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION - it is theoretically possible to have the temporary appearance of a highly ordered state (what you were referring to as all the high energy molecules showing up on one side of the tank, and the low energy molecules on the other).

In short, your kids have two "Creationist Laws" that are in conflict: If there is only one stable state, then no unstable state can appear from which work can be created.

Perhaps now you begin to get a glimmer as to why so many feel that "Creationism" leads to bad science? Not that I can detect anything truly "creationist" about what "your kids" have produced. Filtering out your nonsense, they seem like bright kids who have enough understanding of the Laws to experiment with trying to create new ones.

Reminds me of the days when my firends and I used Quantum Mechanics to explain how Santa Claus is able to deliver all the presents in one night. (Chimneys have nothing to do with it, BTW).

õ¿õ¬

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2011 12:08:48 AM PST
James G. Christenson says: "The extension of the Second Law is not so obvious to me."

I don't think it's obvious to anyone. The universality of the second law is not something that derives from first principles - but you try finding an exception to the second law.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2011 11:35:26 PM PST
noman--"He used statistics the way a drunkard uses lampposts - for support, not illumination.">>JGC: A wonderful quote! To whom was he referring?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  90
Total posts:  1420
Initial post:  Oct 29, 2011
Latest post:  Jul 22, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 8 customers

Search Customer Discussions