Thermodynamics and The Universe

On comparing Earth's entropy with that of other planets:If I were to accept Ilya Prigogine's argument for dissipative structures operating far from equilibrium, and if I were to assume that living organisms qualify as dissipative structures, then it would be fair to say that Earth has a great deal more entropy production than Mars or Venus, because dissipative structures (e.g., bacteria) produce consierably more entropy than non-dissipative structures (e.g., rocks). 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 do not know enough about QM to suppose how it would associate with all this bio-entropy. But if I look at a genome or a population as a biological macrostate I can see how genes and their alleles might represent microstates that provide both vital variation and far-from-equilibrium boundaries. (To me, life seems more thermodynamical than quantum mechanical.)”HM

Brad, I tend to agree that Prigogine’s theory of dissipative structures has failed to capture the whole business of life. The thrust of his theory seems to have stalled out in recent times. But I do see how his far-from-equilibrium argument can apply to biological systems, maybe even to social systems. Thanks for Gladyshev's links; I’ll check them out.You wrote: I don’t understand this. What gives you the impression that I would “fall student to out-of-equilibria positions”? I was merely suggesting that a pound of manure produces more entropy than a pound of rocks. Since neither Venus nor Mars has any manure I concluded that Earth produces more entropy than the other two planets (we’ve got plenty of manure down here!). As for your comment about Christianity, this too is hard for me to understand. You must have me confused with a Christian who wants to take Prigogine’s theory to church. Well, I am not Christian. I am an untheist”I believe it doesn’t matter if there is or isn’t a God.You quoted Gladyshev:

quote:

---

For decades, the opinion was widespread that natural open biological systems are far from an equilibrium state. It was also believed that far from equilibrium processes take place in these systems. Indeed, if this is true, then thermodynamics (i.e. thermostatics), or the thermodynamics of quasi-equilibrium systems and processes, cannot be applied.

​

However, recently, the law of temporal hierarchies was formulated. This law substantiates the possibility of identifying, or discerning, quasi-closed monohierarchical systems or subsystems within open polyhierarchical biological systems.

---

I am aware of this recent “law of temporal hierarchy” commotion, but I haven’t adopted it yet. And I don’t see why it should scotch dissipative structures in biology, either.”HM

Brad, you’re a hard read. I get the sense of a lateral attitude. That assumes we know what life IS, which we don’t, not well enough to say that life itself is a dissipative structure. Is that a coded message to the Klingons? If I understand this correctly, which I doubt, you are saying that negative entropy associates with life’s emergent property of self-organization. Well, maybe or maybe not. Many have built models to that effect. But nothing biologists and chemists have down yet provide the complete answer to the question, What is life? Otherwise, they would know all about abiogensis and be busy in their labs making life from scratch. Negative entropy doesn’t get you very far toward that goal.Besides, cellular-automata systems, like the Game of Life, lack one important feature that is crucial to biological life”coded inheritance. (Richard Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker model is an interesting exception.) Am I suppose to understand this? Klingons again?”HM

I think I’ll leave you there, Brad, irregardless of the nonethenevertheless meaning of the enthalpy in your entropy where your asymmetry is symmetrical in all places without spaces. Good luck with your writing career, and give my best to the Klingons and Homer Simpson.”HM

One distinction between manure and rocks is the presence or absence of a genetic code, which brings into consideration a digital reality that communicates with the material analogs, and thus adds another source of entropy. 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.Perhaps one way to detect extraterrestrial life is to somehow measure the entropy production from the surface of a candidate planet and compare it with a relevant stardard of entropy production of a mineral-only planet (and I don't have a clue as to how to measure entropy production at a distance.)”HM

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

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.”HMEdited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

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. To some degree, yes. 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. 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

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

True.”HM

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. 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

That would be true for an ice crystal as compared to a water droplet, both operating at or near equilibrium. But a living organism is a dissipative structure that operates far from equilibrium, and in doing so it pays the entropy pig big time. For an organism to be so highly ordered it must consume energy and produce entropy at much higher rates to remain that way...because life operates much futher away from equilibrium than rocks, water, and ice. (I'm basing my entire argument on Prigogine's theory, as I understand it.)My point is that while the organism is highly organized and complex, it is compelled to vigorously carry out metabolism and other processes that are engaged in thermodynamic entropy production.”HM

I sense that we have a dsiconnect on the meaning of a dissipartive structure. I must admit that I am only an isolated reader of Prigogine and others who advocate far-from-equilibrium behaviors. If that is what life is, and if that is what an organism is”a dissipative structure”then I must assume that disproportionately high rates of energy consumption and entropy production are needed to hold a biosystem in its highly organized and complex far-from-equilibrium position. I don't agree , for the reasons I have stated above. I have read several of Prigogine's books and book chapters. Here's one example that may work for you. In Prigogine's Preface to his book From Being to Becoming (1980) he states:

quote:

---

In molecular biology there have been fundamental progress without which this discussion would not have been possible. But I wish to emphasize other aspects: namley, that living organisms are far-from-equilibrium objects separated by instabilities from the world of equilibrium and that living organisms are necessarily "large," macrosciopic objects requiring a coherent state of matter in order to produce the complex biomolecules that make the perpetuation of life possible.

---

Prigogine also speaks of "macro entropy"”the macroscopic cost of macroscopic self-organization”and this may be what you are either objecting to or ignoring.”HM

Brad, what makes you assume that I should care a twit to decipher this or anything else you write?

Well, then I guess you're right, since I've been talking about entropy production (dissipation) all along. Admittedly, when I was saying a pound of manure has more entropy than a pound of rock I was actually meaning the manure produces more entropy than the rock. Yes, it is rate and direction that I was talking about”dynamical change. However, I am wondering now if knowing the "amount" of entropy contained in a structure has any measurable meaning. Isn't the "amount" of change the key feature of interest in dynamics?”HM