Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thermodynamics and The Universe
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 121 of 186 (387588)
03-01-2007 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Fosdick
03-01-2007 11:45 AM


Re: Manure, rocks, and entropy
Hoot Mon writes:
There is no doubt that the expressions of genes, manifesting in phenotypes, produce much more entropy than equivalent weights of minerals bound up in rocks.
No doubt? There is every doubt. Calculating entropy changes for complex non-homogeneous materials is incredibly complicated. A simple counterexample to "expressions of genes...produce much more entropy than...rocks" is a seed growing into a tree. While such growth is extremely complicated, we know that the tiny seed system with only a little stored chemical energy and information has changed to become a large tree system with a huge amount of stored chemical energy, and more information, too, though not genetic.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Fosdick, posted 03-01-2007 11:45 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Fosdick, posted 03-01-2007 1:08 PM Percy has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 186 (387598)
03-01-2007 12:33 PM


Entropy
Remember entropy is not fundamentally related to disorder. There are many cases where one can have two systems, the most disorderly of which actually has lower entropy than the ordered one.
Also the measure of entropy, as originally conceived by Boltzmann, depends on exactly where you draw your macro/microstate boundary.
Entropy is more a measure of how generic a macrostate is. However a lot of "disordered" states are very generic and hence the link.

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 123 of 186 (387605)
03-01-2007 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Percy
03-01-2007 12:04 PM


Re: Manure, rocks, and entropy
Percy wrote:
Calculating entropy changes for complex non-homogeneous materials is incredibly complicated. A simple counterexample to "expressions of genes...produce much more entropy than...rocks" is a seed growing into a tree. While such growth is extremely complicated, we know that the tiny seed system with only a little stored chemical energy and information has changed to become a large tree system with a huge amount of stored chemical energy, and more information, too, though not genetic.
I was only supposing that genetic expressions in manure amount to greater information/entropy production than the lifeless rocks.
This of course brings into question the meaning of "information" contained in water and rocks verses that contained in living systems. According to information theory, more order means less information, so thermodynamic entropy and information can be equated for theoretical purposes. An information theorist would say that the freezing of water amounts to a loss of information, owing to the reduction of uncertainty in microstate/macrostate networks of communication. Genes are communicators in biosystems, which also maintain high states of order (complexity?). But living systems are dissipative structures, according to Prigogine, and things behave differently when operating "far from equilibrium." Such dissipative structures are disproportionately greater entropy/information producers because they operate far form equilibrium at much high energy costs. This is why manure should produce much more entropy and information that a rock of an equivalent size.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Percy, posted 03-01-2007 12:04 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Percy, posted 03-02-2007 8:04 AM Fosdick has replied
 Message 125 by jar, posted 03-02-2007 9:51 AM Fosdick has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 124 of 186 (387725)
03-02-2007 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Fosdick
03-01-2007 1:08 PM


Re: Manure, rocks, and entropy
I understand the point you're trying to make, but you're going to have to consider much more simple and homogeneous objects than manure and rocks in order to be certain of your answer. How much information is contained in 97 billion nearly identical copies of a microorganism? Is your rock homogeneous or does it consist of many different elements and crystalline structures, or does it contain significant amounts of radioactive elements?
Though I was originally replying to Buzsaw and his manure example, I also have in mind what you said back in Message 94, that "Earth has a great deal more entropy production than Mars or Venus, because dissipative structures (e.g., bacteria) produce considerably more entropy than non-dissipative structures (e.g., rocks)..." But what you're doing is drawing conclusions about apples from an example about oranges. In the short term, whether the entropy in a recent cowpat is increasing or decreasing is an extremely complicated and probably unanswerable question. In the long term I'd have to concede it very likely that considered as isolated systems a pound of cowpat began with lower entropy than a pound of, say, granite, but planets that orbit active suns are not isolated systems. If a cowpat has lower entropy than a rock, it still tells you nothing about whether earth is currently gaining or losing entropy. The sun is pouring energy onto the earth, and whether it results in net entropy gains or losses at this point in time I don't think anyone knows. Certainly in the long term, billions of years, earth will experience huge entropy gains, but right now, who knows?
The reason I'm quibbling over this is because Buzsaw seems to believe that we can know whether entropy is increasing or decreasing for something the size of a planet. My point is that entropy change is very difficult to determine even with something as simple as a cowpat (especially while the microorganisms are still active), let alone a planet.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Fosdick, posted 03-01-2007 1:08 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Fosdick, posted 03-02-2007 11:51 AM Percy has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 125 of 186 (387733)
03-02-2007 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Fosdick
03-01-2007 1:08 PM


Re: Manure, rocks, and entropy
How would you describe the relative "entropy" levels of the following?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Fosdick, posted 03-01-2007 1:08 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Fosdick, posted 03-02-2007 10:57 AM jar has replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 126 of 186 (387736)
03-02-2007 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by jar
03-02-2007 9:51 AM


Re: Manure, rocks, and entropy
jar wrote:
How would you describe the relative "entropy" levels of the following?
(5 photos follow)
That should be fairly easy. Just tell me the file size in kilobytes of each picture. The larger the file the more information it contains, and, corrspondingly, the more entropy it represents.
”HM
Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by jar, posted 03-02-2007 9:51 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by jar, posted 03-02-2007 11:17 AM Fosdick has replied
 Message 128 by cavediver, posted 03-02-2007 11:20 AM Fosdick has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 127 of 186 (387738)
03-02-2007 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Fosdick
03-02-2007 10:57 AM


Re: Manure, rocks, and entropy
Sorry, but I was referring to to the objects the pictures represented.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Fosdick, posted 03-02-2007 10:57 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Fosdick, posted 03-02-2007 12:09 PM jar has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 128 of 186 (387739)
03-02-2007 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Fosdick
03-02-2007 10:57 AM


Re: Manure, rocks, and entropy
The larger the file the more information it contains, and, corrspondingly, the more entropy it represents
That's making some very large (and probably incorrect) assumptions concerning compression techniques.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Fosdick, posted 03-02-2007 10:57 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Fosdick, posted 03-02-2007 12:13 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 129 of 186 (387741)
03-02-2007 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Percy
03-02-2007 8:04 AM


Re: Manure, rocks, and entropy
Percy wrote:
I understand the point you're trying to make, but you're going to have to consider much more simple and homogeneous objects than manure and rocks in order to be certain of your answer. How much information is contained in 97 billion nearly identical copies of a microorganism? Is your rock homogeneous or does it consist of many different elements and crystalline structures, or does it contain significant amounts of radioactive elements?
Of course the point of comparing manure to rocks is that manure actively produces more entropy through its microbial metabolism than a rock (of equivalent size) does by way of its internal chemistry and radiation (unless perhaps the rock is a concentrated uranium ore or somethinmg like that). The entropy production of 97 billion identical microbes in manure should make the difference when compared to a rock of equal size without as many bugs.
Though I was originally replying to Buzsaw and his manure example, I also have in mind what you said back in Message 94, that "Earth has a great deal more entropy production than Mars or Venus, because dissipative structures (e.g., bacteria) produce considerably more entropy than non-dissipative structures (e.g., rocks)..." But what you're doing is drawing conclusions about apples from an example about oranges.
To some degree, yes.
In the short term, whether the entropy in a recent cowpat is increasing or decreasing is an extremely complicated and probably unanswerable question. In the long term I'd have to concede it very likely that considered as isolated systems a pound of cowpat began with lower entropy than a pound of, say, granite, but planets that orbit active suns are not isolated systems. If a cowpat has lower entropy than a rock, it still tells you nothing about whether earth is currently gaining or losing entropy.
I don't know how a pound of manure could begin with lower entropy than a pound of rock. A pile of manure can be so thermodynamically energetic it catches on fire, but a pile of rocks usually does not have such a combustible nature.
The sun is pouring energy onto the earth, and whether it results in net entropy gains or losses at this point in time I don't think anyone knows. Certainly in the long term, billions of years, earth will experience huge entropy gains, but right now, who knows?
Yes, the macroscopic aspects of this issue are relevant. I don't know exactly how they could be sorted out. But one thing is certain: Earth is covered with life; her seas a chuck full of it, her land masses, too. All that bio-entropy ought to count for something when comparing the "macro-entropy" of Earth with that of other planets.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Percy, posted 03-02-2007 8:04 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by ringo, posted 03-02-2007 1:25 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 133 by Percy, posted 03-02-2007 2:45 PM Fosdick has replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 130 of 186 (387746)
03-02-2007 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by jar
03-02-2007 11:17 AM


Re: Manure, rocks, and entropy
jar wrote:
Sorry, but I was referring to to the objects the pictures represented.
And the question was, "How would you describe the relative "entropy" levels of the following?"
But all you provide for analysis are 2-D photographs of landscapes. Could you tell me something about the microbial life in those surface photos. If these photos are of Earth's surface then try using a filter that blocks out everything but DNA molecules (assuming, of course, that this is possible). I would expect to see each photo in silhouette form of its original, because on Earth just about everything is cover and/or saturated with DNA molecules, which belong mostly to microbial life.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by jar, posted 03-02-2007 11:17 AM jar has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 131 of 186 (387748)
03-02-2007 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by cavediver
03-02-2007 11:20 AM


Re: Manure, rocks, and entropy
The larger the file the more information it contains, and, corrspondingly, the more entropy it represents.
cavediver observes:
That's making some very large (and probably incorrect) assumptions concerning compression techniques.
True.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by cavediver, posted 03-02-2007 11:20 AM cavediver has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 132 of 186 (387754)
03-02-2007 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Fosdick
03-02-2007 11:51 AM


Re: Manure, rocks, and entropy
Hoot mon writes:
A pile of manure can be so thermodynamically energetic it catches on fire, but a pile of rocks usually does not have such a combustible nature.
Hmm.... When I was a kid, we used to burn rocks in the kitchen stove.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Fosdick, posted 03-02-2007 11:51 AM Fosdick has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 133 of 186 (387760)
03-02-2007 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Fosdick
03-02-2007 11:51 AM


Re: Manure, rocks, and entropy
Hoot Mon writes:
Of course the point of comparing manure to rocks is that manure actively produces more entropy through its microbial metabolism than a rock (of equivalent size) does by way of its internal chemistry and radiation (unless perhaps the rock is a concentrated uranium ore or somethinmg like that). The entropy production of 97 billion identical microbes in manure should make the difference when compared to a rock of equal size without as many bugs.
You're still using an example orthogonal to your point, so let me try again, this time explaining in a slightly different way. If you separately isolate a cowpat and a rock so that each is an isolated system, then I concede it very likely that as time goes by the cowpat will experience a larger increase in entropy than the rock, assuming the rock isn't of some interesting material.
But you're using this example to make a point about the earth, and the earth is not an isolated system. So to make your example relevant we have to consider a cowpat and a rock in situations where they, too, are not isolated. So we have to consider something more like the situation the earth is in, such as a cowpat and a rock sitting in a field. The sun is beating down on them during the day. Are they gaining or losing entropy? Beats me, and probably everyone else, too. Do undigested seeds embedded in the cowpat that begin to grow count? Do microbes that fall onto it from the air count? Fly larvae? Do microbes that somehow make a living off rock count?
A planet is far more complex. Is the earth gaining or losing entropy right now? Who knows!
I don't know how a pound of manure could begin with lower entropy than a pound of rock. A pile of manure can be so thermodynamically energetic it catches on fire, but a pile of rocks usually does not have such a combustible nature.
This reads like you've got the definition of entropy backwards.
Yes, the macroscopic aspects of this issue are relevant. I don't know exactly how they could be sorted out. But one thing is certain: Earth is covered with life; her seas a chuck full of it, her land masses, too. All that bio-entropy ought to count for something when comparing the "macro-entropy" of Earth with that of other planets.
Let me get this straight. You feel that some significance can be attached to whether the earth is changing entropy at rates different from other planets, but you don't know whether it is changing at a faster or slower pace, or even whether the change is in a positive or negative direction. Whatever the actual situation turns out to be, since we don't know what the situation is at this point it neither supports nor negates your point.
Referring back again to your Message 94, now I'm beginning to wonder if you *are* misunderstanding the nature of entropy. I'm looking at this:
The collective entropy in Earth's biosphere should be computable, via Prigogine, and any life-supporting planet should have measurably higher amounts of entropy than others of equal size that are lifeless.
I originally assumed you misspoke and meant to say that any life-supporting planet should have measurably higher rates of increasing entropy, but in this last message you've repeated this. The raw materials of life mixed up and compressed into a rock have much *higher* levels of entropy than the same materials realized as a large colony of bacteria. Life is highly ordered and hence has *lower* entropy.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Fosdick, posted 03-02-2007 11:51 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Fosdick, posted 03-02-2007 3:07 PM Percy has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 134 of 186 (387761)
03-02-2007 2:59 PM


where in the universe is the universe?
delta s=0 is where the buck stops.

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Fosdick, posted 03-04-2007 12:40 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 135 of 186 (387762)
03-02-2007 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Percy
03-02-2007 2:45 PM


Re: Manure, rocks, and entropy
Percy wrote:
This reads like you've got the definition of entropy backwards.
Would you expect to see more entropy produced by a one-milligram bacterium or by a one-milligram grain of sand? Since the bacterium is a dissipative structure and the sand grain is not I would expect to see more entropy produced by the bacterium.
I originally assumed you misspoke and meant to say that any life-supporting planet should have measurably higher rates of increasing entropy, but in this last message you've repeated this. The raw materials of life mixed up and compressed into a rock have much *higher* levels of entropy than the same materials realized as a large colony of bacteria. Life is highly ordered and hence has *lower* entropy.
Highly ordered as a dissipative structure, which is a high-rate entropy producer. And remember, a living dissipative structure must dissipate more than just thermodynamic entropy; it must also dissipate digital information through it communication nettworks.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Percy, posted 03-02-2007 2:45 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Percy, posted 03-02-2007 4:52 PM Fosdick has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024