Re: PONG (was Re: Thermodynamics, Biological Evolution,andDisorder)

Hi again, Charlie!

Say, how long do you plan to play this sillie game with this
ridiculous nick name? We all know who you are by now...


[EMAIL PROTECTED] (littleblondgirl) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Arne Vogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> <SNIP>
> 
> 
> > >>It was pointed out that phase separation of immiscible liquids (e.g. oil 
> > >>and water) involves a macroscopic *increase* in order and a microscopic 
> > >>*decrease* thereof (e.g. an increase in entropy). Thus, 'order' in the 
> > >>two realms is *not* simply the same.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Pointed out by whom? And who is to say that's correct. As a metter of 
> > 
> > 1. In the post that started this thread, by Timothy Downs:
> > 
> > --- begin quote ---
> > Order can arise from disorder. This can be shown by doing the
> > following:
> > 
> > Take a jar, and fill it with water and oil. Shake the jar, and place
> > it on a table. At this point in time, the contents of the jar are
> > quite unordered. Globs of oil are mixed in with the water. Wait an
> > hour. At this point in time, assuming the experiment was not done in
> > the bizarro dimension of creationism, the oil and the water should be
> > neatly sorted into two layers.
> > 
> > Energy will spread out unless something stops it from spreading out.
> > Thermodynamic entropy measures this, not disorder. It does not measure
> > patterns in snowflakes or unsorted lists of numbers.
> > --- end quote ---
> > 
> > 2. Who is to say that's correct? Err, the 2nd law of thermodynamics and 
> > just about any 10th grade chemistry textbook. The burden of proof is on 
> > *you* to show the opposite. (Remember: extraordinary claims demand 
> > extraordinary evidence!)
> 
>    There's nothing extraordinary at all here. It just involves an
> understanding of the 2nd law and of entropy.

Which you don't have. Charlie, how often do I need to tell you that
you shouldn't rely on the Feynman lectures, that they are only an
*introductory* text book, and that you should try reading some
advanced text books on statistical mechanics?



> Downs says nothing at all
> about macroscopic or microscopic order. The normal condition of two
> immiscible liquids is separation. When you shake the container, you
> add energy and increase the entropy.

Please provide evidence that the mixing increases the entropy.


> When the particles separate back
> to their original state, heat energy is released and the entropy
> decreases. 

As pointed out earlier in this thread, this is wrong - the separating
*increases* the entropy actually. Entropy increases, the macroscopic
disorder decreases. I quote from the post by Dan Ensign, which you
apparently missed:

"Not only does this experiment, on the macroscopic level, show that
order
might arise from disorder, but it is also a very interesting
phenomenon
to consider in the microscopic realm.  The reason that oil and water
do
not mix is because the water is allowed a higher entropy state in the
presence of water than it is in the presence of oil.  An oil molecule
will cause water molecules to orient such that their dipoles point in
a
direction parallel to the oil molecule, sice hydrocarbons have no
permanent dipoles with which the water can interact.  This effectively
restricts the motion of the water molecules to rotation in the plane
containing the dipole--this is a classic example of entropic decrease
due to a higher level of molecular order, because when no oil
molecules
are around, the water can orient in any direction (i.e., its degrees
of
freedom of motion are greater in number).  When one considers the
Gibbs'
free energy of such a system, one finds that the enthalpic terms are
not
that great in magnitude, and also that the entropy loss of the oil
molecule itself in water is not that great.  What drives the
separation
is the increase in entropy of the water should oil molecules be
excluded
from the mix.

Ergo, an entropic increase of the water molecules on the microscopic
scale drives the apparent increase in order--oil separating from
water--on the macroscopic scale."

Kind of shreds you argument about entropy = (macroscopic) disorder,
don't you think? (yes, I know, you don't think so - you are
unteachable)


> In separation, the entropy decreases both macroscopically
> and microscopically.

Speaking of macroscopic entropy makes no sense.


> The emulsified state is more disordered and the
> separate state is more ordered.

It *looks* more ordered to you - but nevertheless, its *microscopic*
entropy is greater. See above.


> I don't understand what the problem is. With what part of that do you
> disagree?

With "entropy = (macroscopic) disorder".

 

> > > fact, my opinion is that when phase separation of miscible liquids 
> > > occurs, theres a decrease in entropy, both macroscopic and microscopic. 
> > > Why would you think otherwise?
> > 
> > Definitely. Thermodynamical entropy increases, microscopic order 
> > decreases (by making the water molecules less restricted in their 
> > orientation).
> 
> You can't say "entropy increases" or "entropy decreases" without
> specifying the boundaries of the system. In a refrigerator, entropy in
> the freezer is decreasing as water freezes into ice, but the entropy
> of the *universe* increases, as required by the 2nd law.

In the system above, the entropy increases, no matter if you look only
at the jar or at the jar and its surroundings.

[snip]


> > In your first post in this thread, you said:
> > 
> > --- begin quote ---
> >       Suppose you had a crystal of ice, perhaps a snowflake. How many
> > ways could you arrange the molecules of water so that it still looks
> > like a snaowflake? Now melt the ice. How many ways could you arrange the
> > molecules in the drop of water so that it still looks like a drop of
> > water? Clearly, there are *more* ways to arrange them in the second
> > case. Disorder is a measurement of the number of ways that the "insides"
> > of a system can be arranged so that it looks the same from the outside.
> > The logarithm of that number is called entropy, and it measures the
> > disorder of a system. (S ~ ln W) If the number of ways that you can
> > distribute the elements of a system so that it looks the same from the
> > outside increases, then the disorder increases and the entropy increases.
> >       Clearly, living organisms have less entropy (less disorder) than a
> > pool of random chemicals. Therefore, in the evolution of living
> > organisms, entropy has decreased. These kinds of decreases in entropy
> > are allowable, if a sufficient increase in entropy occurs elsewhere, but
> > there is no mechanism available to explain how this entropy decrease
> > occured. In plants, we can point to photosynthesis to explain the
> > entropy decreases that occur. In snowflakes, we can point to the removal
> > of heat. What mechanism explains the decreases in entropy attributed to
> > evolution?
> > --- end quote ---
> > 
> > You were very obviously talking about thermodynamic entropy and 
> > referring to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
> 
> I see no references to either of those factors in my quote. 

You mentioned heat. Last I looked, heat was dealt with by
thermodynamics.


> > Since the *real* second law 
> > (as opposed to some pet 'laws' ab^H^Hused by anti-evolutionists) applies 
> > to and only to thermodynamic entropy that's another strong hint in this 
> > direction.
> 
> There are many who would disgaree with you on this point.

Yes - the ones who don't understand entropy.

> Me for one.

As I said...


> The statistical mechanical interpretation of the 2nd law in terms of
> order, disorder and probability is well accepted by physicists.

Wrong. The statistical mechanical interpretation of the 2nd law is
well accepted, that's right. It deals with probabilities, that's
right, too. But it does *not* deal with order and disorder! (and may I
remind you of my qualifications? I've got a PhD in physics and have
already taught thermodynamics and statistical mechanics to
students...)

Charlie, the definition of entropy in statistical mechanics is
  S = - k_B <ln \rho>,
where k_B is Boltzmann's constant, <...> means the expectation value,
and \rho is the phase space density (in classical mechanics) or the
density operator (in quantum mechanics); that's the point where the
probabilities come in. Could you please point out where in the formula
above order or disorder does appear?

(Hint: Your favorite formula S = k_B ln W is a special case of this -
do you know which case, and how to arrive at this formula from the one
above?)



> > Mixing two gases involves an increase in the number of accessible 
> > microstates, and thus an entropy increase (thermodynamic entropy of 
> > course). Whether you find this relevant or not is your business. 
> > Boltzmann's constant was used to convert from the # of accessible 
> > microstates to thermodynamic entropy, and this is fully legitimate. So 
> > thermodynamic entropy is *one* kind of information entropy (the term 
> > "logical entropy" really seems to be used almost exclusively by 
> > anti-evolutionists, probably to obscure). The second law is *only* valid 
> > for thermodynamic entropy. If you refer to 'laws' invented by someone 
> > who somehow has a gut feeling against evolution theory, please point us 
> > to a location where it and its legitimation is explained in detail.
> 
> You have a very narrow and not at all universally held view of the 2nd
> law.

Wrong. *You* have a confused view of the 2nd law.


> Perhaps it's time to move beyond classical thermodynamics. Why
> are you bringing up the subject of evolution?


> I haven't said that
> evolution violates the 2nd law.

*sigh* As usual, Charlie realizes that he can't held up his original
argument and tries to weasel out.

Charlie, you said the following:
"Clearly, living organisms have less entropy (less disorder) than a
pool of random chemicals. Therefore, in the evolution of living
organisms, entropy has decreased. These kinds of decreases in entropy
are allowable, if a sufficient increase in entropy occurs elsewhere,
but
there is no mechanism available to explain how this entropy decrease
occured. In plants, we can point to photosynthesis to explain the
entropy decreases that occur. In snowflakes, we can point to the
removal
of heat. What mechanism explains the decreases in entropy attributed
to
evolution?"

This *clearly* says that you think that evolution violates the 2nd
law!


> Evolution does violate a Law, but not
> that one...another one. The one that says that machines don't build
> themselves without intelligent guidance.

Charlie, that's not a law accepted by anyone but you. You made it up
out of thin air, without any supporting evidence, and without even
clearly defining the terms in it. How often did we ask you for a clear
definition of "machine" and "intelligent guidance", and how often did
you use obfuscation instead of clear answers?

[snip]


> > I used this as an analogy to natural selection, which requires no 
> > intelligence. The same kind of 'marble selection' could be performed by 
> > a dumb machine. Other kinds of 'selection' by a natural law.
> 
> Selection doesn't have the power to adapts means to ends, to adapt
> structure and process to function, or to create structure, process or
> function with random changes. Give it up.

Oh, your usual buzz-words again! Why am I not surprised?

Charlie, mutation and natural selection lead to a bacterium which is
able to digest nylon. So there is a clear example where evolution
adapted means to ends, adapted structure and process to function, and
created structure, process and function with random changes. Give it
up.

Bye,
Bjoern