[bentstrider]

You think I was born yesterday?
I know they're Laws of Physics.
All I want to put out now is that there are always going to be people trying to prove it wrong.

[smiley]

Laws of Thermodynamics are not legal laws. they are laws of physics. these can not be broken.

I'm aware that some people here on this forum practically worship the second law and probably hate me for shattering their universe, but

The second law does not hold in all cases.

Before you accuse me of blasphemy, hubris and try to lynch me, please read the proof.

The second law predicts that the entropy of an isolated system always increases, and that when two systems are joined together, the entropy of the combined system is greater than the sum of the individual systems.

Now consider two boxes: one filled with nitrogen, one filled with oxygen. When these two boxes are joined, the gas will start too mix. The final state will most probably be a 50/50 mixture of these gasses on both sides. This resembles a greater degree of disorder, so the entropy of the system has increased.

One can also imagine that a different mixture is possible. For instance 49/51 on the one side and 51/49 on the other side. While this is statistically more unlikely, the probability is still so large that it probably will occur if one watches the box for a sufficient length of time.

The probability that all the atoms will remigrate to their original boxes is infinitesimal small, but not zero. If one would watch the box for a period close to eternity, the probability that at one point the atoms will defy the 2nd law of thermodynamics is approaching 100%.

Hence the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not hold always, just in the vast majority of cases.

There is one famous invention that uses this principle. It is the infinite improbability drive from the "Hitchhikers guide through the galaxy" by Douglas Adams. It starts with the premises that it is highly unlikely that the atoms of a spaceship would suddenly jump to another side of the galaxy and rearrange themselves to form the same spaceship. Highly unlikely but not impossible. The improbability drive reverses the levels of probability so that extremely unlikely events suddenly become very likely. Then it has become entirely plausible that the ship will jump from one place in the Galaxy to another. While this made intergalactic travel possible, it has some side effects.

The Heart of Gold was the prototype ship for infinite improbability travel. The principle is that as its drive reaches infinite improbability, the ship passes simultaneously through every point in the universe. It is then possible to decide at which point you actually want to be at when improbability levels decrease. Unfortunately human beings are not very well accustomed to not traveling at Normality (probability 1:1), and can be fairly distressed by events around them whilst the improbability drive is working: losing limbs, turning into penguins, planets spontaneously becoming fruitcakes, nuclear missiles metamorphosing into sperm whales and bowls of petunias, and so forth. The starship Heart of Gold was somewhat insulated against this by having an improbability-proof drive room, allowing the pilots to remain more or less normal during the flight

While this last bit shouldn't be taken too seriously, it does show the problems involved with breaking the second law. So bentstrider don't get your hopes up.

[bentstrider]

I'll keep them up.
I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one on this rock who wants to challenge it.

[TrueKaiser]

you do know that book is fiction right?
and your gas idea doesn't hold cause it doesn't take into acount the weight of the gases.

[Kingcoal]

The problem with free energy devices is that they don't work. If anyone knows of a working prototype let the world know so that it can be peer reviewed. Honestly, where are the working ZPE generators, cold fusion generators, etc? All I've ever seen is theoretical diatribes.

[DvidBrent]

Exactly,

The laws of tdym (couldnt be bothered to type out that word) are not laws but merely indications, or generalisations.

The worst "law" is the first.
Read this extract from alternative science to find the history of that "law" and how it came about.

http://www.alternativescience.com/perpetual_motion.htm

[MonteQuest]

There is no easy way to make a transition from a mechanical world view based upon the idea of permanent material growth to a world view based on the idea of conserving finite resources. It took thousands of years to make the transition from a hunter gatherer existence to an agrarian one. It took hundreds of years to move from an agrarian existence to an industrial one. In both instances, we had plenty of time and resources to make the radical adjustments required. Today, we are being forced to make a transition from the Industrial Age of non-renewable resources to a new and still undefined age based once again on renewable resources or some new primary science--and do it in less than one generation, or even less.

Throughout human history, mankind has struggled with the availability of resources, such as food, land, energy, and water. People have tried to create systems, contraptions, and laws that promised unrestricted access to such resources. This was often accompanied with fears and explicit threats of annihilation if such laws would be disobeyed or such systems would not be deployed. In relatively recent times, humans have gathered a fundamental understanding about the energy and resource balance of the earth and the universe. A lot of it involved the discovery of the nature of the solar system (a planetary system revolving around the sun), as well as the laws of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is the study of the inter-relation between heat, work and internal energy of a system. While the laws of thermodynamics were discovered in laboratories--often referred to as closed or isolated systems--they have demonstrated universal validity outside of the laboratory in the real world.

Today, the most widely accepted theory about the origin and development of the universe is the big bang theory. It postulates that the universe began with the explosion of a tremendously dense source of energy and mass. As this dense energy expanded outward, it began to slow down, forming galaxies, stars, and planets. As the energy continues to expand and become more diffused, it loses more and more of its order and will eventually reach a point of maximum entropy, or an equilibrium state of heat death. Everything will be the same temperature, approaching zero point energy.

The big bang theory coincides with the first and second laws of thermodynamics:

• The First Law states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; only transformed from one form to another. This is also known as the Conservation Law.
  
• The Second Law states that whenever energy is converted from one form to another, there is an energy loss in the form of heat. It is also known as the Law of Entropy. Entropy is a measure of this loss in usable energy. No evidence has ever been shown to contradict the Second Law and it is the most scientifically backed and proven statement ever made.
  
• The Third Law states that the entropy of a system at zero absolute temperature is a well-defined constant. This is because a system at zero temperature exists in its ground (lowest energy) state, so that its entropy is determined only by the degeneracy of the ground state. Or, in simpler terms, as this minimum temperature is approached, the further extraction of energy becomes more and more difficult.

The British scientist and author C.P. Snow had an excellent way of remembering the three laws:
1. You cannot win (that is, you cannot get something for nothing, because matter and energy are conserved).
2. You cannot break even (you cannot return to the same energy state, because there is always an increase in disorder; entropy always increases).
3. You cannot get out of the game (because absolute zero is unattainable).

There will be those who will stubbornly refuse to accept the fact that the Entropy Law reigns supreme over all physical reality in the world. The laws of thermodynamics provide the overarching scientific frame for the unfolding of all physical activity in this world.

[smiley]

No evidence has ever been shown to contradict the Second Law and it is the most scientifically backed and proven statement ever made.

On the contrary. It is one of the most discussed theories around. You have to understand that the thermodynamics were developed before the atomic theory was well accepted. They tried to model processes on a scale which they not yet understood.

Not that there is so much wrong with the law itself. (I have to be careful here so that I don't give hope to the New Energy people). Everyone agrees that the entropy for a particular system must increase.

The problem is the definition of entropy itself. A lot of people define it as a degree of disorder. This is plain wrong. There are a number of experiments which show that order can increase with entropy. Yet somehow this concept seems to have embedded itself in the view of general public as well as in the scientific community.

Boltzmann defined entropy in terms of complexions (which can be statistically linked to disorder) but the original definition of Boltzmann does not hold in all cases. As I explained in another tread: when you talk about self-organizing systems it breaks down.

And we're still not sure what entropy is. At the moment there are a number of definitions for entropy around. The latest is the refinement of the Boltzmann definition made by Tsallis in 2000 which seems promising. Until a good definition of entropy is found the theory of thermodynamics is severely handicapped, in a sense that it is unable to describe or predict many of the processes which are so important to humans.

Here is a good introduction on entropy and its various definitions
http://www.tim-thompson.com/entropy1.html

Is Entropy a Measure of "Disorder"?
Let us dispense with at least one popular myth: "Entropy is disorder" is a common enough assertion, but commonality does not make it right. Entropy is not "disorder", although the two can be related to one another. For a good lesson on the traps and pitfalls of trying to assert what entropy is, see Insight into entropy by Daniel F. Styer, American Journal of Physics 68(12): 1090-1096 (December 2000). Styer uses liquid crystals to illustrate examples of increased entropy accompanying increased "order", quite impossible in the entropy is disorder worldview. And also keep in mind that "order" is a subjective term, and as such it is subject to the whims of interpretation. This too mitigates against the idea that entropy and "disorder" are always the same, a fact well illustrated by Canadian physicist Doug Craigen, in his online essay "Entropy, God and Evolution".

[Kingcoal]

I agree that nature seems to prevent getting something for nothing and keeping it. Nature does seem to allow short-term borrowing, such as seems to occur close to absolute zero, but in the macro world, nature seems to prevent us from hanging onto borrowed energy.

However, our problem is and always has been energy efficiency. Meaning, the minimum amount of energy required to accomplish a desired effect. It's a very complicated problem, but that is where we should be spending our time.

For instance, I write software to control industrial processes. All over the world, there are powered conveyor systems that run 24/7. A simple software change can turn off those conveyors when they are not in use. However, the way electric usage is determined in the US for industry provides no incentive to save. For an industrial complex, the electric bill is often an estimate based on a one-time measurement of loads. This is one of thousands of antiquated ways of doing things that we can address.

Believe me, once the screws start turning, people will feel the pressure and make the changes. In addition to conserving, we have only scraped the surface of complexity in many of our energy systems designs. We've bolted microcontrollers onto traditionally designed systems and realized large performance and efficiency improvements, but we can go miles further.

The problem is that there needs to be a management die off in the engineering and scientific communities. The new blood needs to take over and do a lot of redesign. Anyone who has worked as an engineer or scientist can attest to the fact that on a daily basis, we can only be so bold. Sacred cows are forced on us. We are put into boxes and told to "think outside the box."

[MonteQuest]

The problem is the definition of entropy itself. A lot of people define it as a degree of disorder. This is plain wrong. There are a number of experiments which show that order can increase with entropy. Yet somehow this concept seems to have embedded itself in the view of general public as well as in the scientific community.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that the disorder of the Universe can only increase in time, but the equations of classical and quantum mechanics, the laws that govern the behaviour of the very small, are time reversible. A few years ago, a tentative theoretical solution to this paradox was proposed - the so-called Fluctuation Theorem - stating that the chances of the Second Law being violated increases as the system in question gets smaller.

This means that at human scales, the Second Law dominates and machines only ever run in one direction. However, when working at molecular scales and over extremely short periods of time, things can take place in either direction. Now, scientists have demonstrated that principle experimentally. Professor Denis Evans and colleagues at the Research School of Chemistry at the Australian National University put 100 tiny beads into a water-filled container. They fired a laser beam at one of the beads, electrically charging the tiny particle and trapping it.

The container holding the beads was then moved from side to side a thousand times a second so that the trapped bead would be dragged first one way and then the other. The researchers discovered that in such a tiny system, entropy can sometimes decrease rather than increase. This effect was seen when the researchers looked at the bead's behaviour for a tenth of a second. Any longer and the effect was lost. This is the only known experiment that I am aware of. Care to share yours? Disproving 2nd Law consistency for a tenth of a second does not hold much hope for me in solving the issue of peak oil. And in this experiment, it seems that shaking the container was adding kenetic energy to the closed system. False results? Dunno...In our peak-oil macro world, 2nd Law cannot be questioned, nor is it. But it is discussed a lot as you assert, but given the ramifications, this is quite understandable, don't you think?

Until a good definition of entropy is found the theory of thermodynamics is severely handicapped, in a sense that it is unable to describe or predict many of the processes which are so important to humans.

I think defining entropy as the measure of unusable energy lost when energy is transfered from one form to another works best. Which processes are you referring to that thermodynamics can not describe or predict?

[pup55]

King coal:

I must rant based on your final paragraph.

I think the scientists and engineers, at least the hands-on people, are mostly pretty reasonable and know how to turn off a light. You are right about the managers, though.

Corporate management, is filled today with a load of lightweights and yes-men, who know little or nothing about the business they are supposed to be managing, at least in my observation.

Probably the reason for this is a favorable economy the last 20 years or so, which, due to rising stock prices, makes these guys think they are geniuses. This is made all the worse by the emergence of mutual funds and institutional investors as the major stockholders of some of these corporations, who tend to select financial types from among themselves for corporate CEO's and officers, rather than the operations people from inside who know the nuts and bolts of the business.

From the top on down, the creativity is beaten out of a lot of the hands-on people. It is made worse because of the downsizing and merger episodes we have been through.

The dieoff you propose will not help if the "new blood" does not come in at the top.

[MonteQuest]

In simplest terms, the Laws of Thermodynamics dictate the specifics for the movement of heat and work. To give you a better understanding on how these laws came about and their modern scope of coverage, you have to understand when and why these laws were generated. Back in the late nineteenth century, European society was about to experience unforeseeable rapid changes. Suddenly, without much of a transition, new pockets of industry arose, focusing towards large-scaled machines rather than small hand tools; large industrial corporations often crushed small agriculturally centered commerce; and in many areas, city life rendered country farm cottages obsolete. We all know this era as the Industrial Revolution.

True of nineteenth century mass industry, the company with the greatest machines produced more products, made more money, and was consequently more successful. The physicists analyzed the flow of heat in these machines, and the chemical changes that transpire when they perform work. Thus was the establishment of modern thermodynamics (circa 1865). First on the agenda of this new discipline was to find a means to convert heat (as produced by machines) into work with full efficiency. If such a flawless conversion could be accomplished, a machine could run off its own heat, producing a never-ending cycle of heat to work, rendering heat, converting to work, and so forth ad infinitum…the perpetual motion machine.

As it turned out, the very same research oriented to create a perpetual-motion machine proved that the very concept is not possible. Physicists attempting to transform heat into work with full efficacy quickly learned that always some heat would escape into the surrounding environment, eternally doomed to be wasted energy. Being obsolete, this energy can never be converted into anything useful again. One physicist noted for significant experiments in this field is the Frenchman, Sadi Carnot. His ideal engine, so properly titled the 'Carnot Engine,' would theoretically have a work output equal to that of its heat input. Carnot concluded (after much experimentation) that no device could completely make the desired conversion, without losing at least some energy to the environment. This irrevocable loss of some energy to the environment was associated with an increase of disorder in that system. Scientists wishing to further penetrate the realm of chaos needed a variable that could be used to calculate disorder. Thanks to mid-nineteenth century physicist, R.J.E. Clausius, this Pandemonium could be measured in terms of a quantity named entropy. Entropy acts as a function of the state of a system - where a high amount of entropy translates to higher chaos within the system, and low entropy signals a highly ordered state. Clausius worked out a general equation, his being devoted to the measurement of entropy change over a period of time: (change) S = Q / T (the change in entropy is equal to the amount of heat added to the system [by an invertible process] divided by the temperature in degrees Kelvin). The beauty of this equation is that it can be used to compute the entropic change of any exchange in nature, not solely limited to machines. This development brought thermodynamics out of the industrial workplace, and opened the possibility for further studies into the tendencies of natural order (and lack therefore of), eventually extending to the universe as a whole.

Applying this knowledge to nature, physicists found that the total entropy change (change in S) always increases for every naturally occurring event (within an isolated system) that could be then observed. Thus, they theorized, disorder must be continually augmenting evenly throughout the universe. When you put ice into a hot cup of tea, heat will flow from the hot tea to the cold ice and melt the ice. Then, once the energy in the cup is evenly distributed, the cooled tea would reach a maximum state of entropy. This situation represents a standard increase in disorder, believed to be perpetually occurring throughout the entire universe.

[smiley]

Applying this knowledge to nature, physicists found that the total entropy change (change in S) always increases for every naturally occurring event (within an isolated system) that could be then observed. Thus, they theorized, disorder must be continually augmenting evenly throughout the universe.

When they applied this to nature they found that everywhere the order increases and in order to justify that observation they assumed that somewhere else in the universe the disorder must increase in order to let the total entropy increase. Only so far they haven't been able to point out where exactly that might be happening.

But order and entropy don't bite. Look at the original Boltzmann equation,

S = k ln W (whereby W is the number of complexions)

Imagine that you have a deck of cards and you draw 4 cards from this deck. Then W should be interpreted as the total number of possible combinations. Most of these combinations are worthless, only a few have value. Each of the combinations has an equal likelihood of occurring

Because there are more "worthless" combinations of cards than "valuable", the probability that you draw a bad hand is larger than that of a valuable hand. This example illustrates the probabilistic nature of the disorder argument. Separate ordered and disordered states have a equal likelihood of occurring. Simply because there are more disordered combinations possible, disorder is more likely to occur. Moreover it shows that disorder and entropy are really separate issues as the entropy is solely defined by the number of elementary complexions, not by whether these complexions are ordered or unordered in nature.

The above considerations are made on the premises that each complexion has an equal preference. However this only holds when the subjects do not interact, like in a perfect gas. The Clausius assumption is thus a special case in which interactions can be ignored. When you have interaction some states will be favored over others, and these are usually ordered states. The W that we use now does not reflect that preference.

This argument is a very old one as it was first expressed by Albert Einstein. Unfortunately his argument was hijacked by the creationist bunch to justify their view of the creation. But the original argument does still hold. When you take in account the orbital theory and the hybridization of the atoms you can understand why ordered states are favored in cases of strong interaction.

Experimentally, chaotic systems are very hard to maintain. A small push will bring them to order. Nanoseconds after the big bang the universe was in ultimate disorder, a hot sphere of expanding gases. Yet a miniscule imperfection made the the universe evolve in the rather ordered state we know now. Chaotic systems only need a very small seed to resolve into order. The opposite is not true.

Ordering phenomena are usually explained in terms of entropy decreasing locally while the entropy of the universe as a whole increases. This is a very poor interpretation since it is possible to increase the order in an isolated system. If you put some liquid in a perfectly thermodynamically sealed box it can crystallize. When you assume that both entropy and order can increase at the same time the interpretation of the events around us becomes a whole lot easier.

The problem with debating these things has grown historically. Thermodynamics have always created a lot of flak from the creationists, who have seen thermodynamics as a direct attack on their image of the universe. They have tried to use whatever they could find to discredit thermodynamics. This has caused the people who believe in thermodynamics to staunchly defend their ideas. Unfortunately this has also caused them to become as blind as the creationists.

It seems that this debate has moved to the background as more and more people seem to be convinced of the need to refine our idea of entropy. If you interested in the subject I would recommend you to read more of the work of Tsallis. The work still needs to be refined, but it has shown its usefulness in many cases where the Boltzmann equation fails. I think it is a very big step forward.

http://www.santafe.edu/research/publica ... sallis.php

[Permanently_Baffled]

OK OK, call me a jelly brain, but I need to ask a question.

Before I ask this question , please let me acknowledge in advance that I am a shit for brains when it comes to physics!!

My question is:

As i understand it one of the laws of thermodynamics is that you cannot 'create' energy , you cannot something for nothing....

If this is correct , surely none of us would be here?? Or is this the God versus science argument? Where did all the 'energy' come from in the first place if it wasn't created from nothing?

PB

[smiley]

As i understand it one of the laws of thermodynamics is that you cannot 'create' energy , you cannot something for nothing....

If this is correct , surely none of us would be here?? Or is this the God versus science argument? Where did all the 'energy' come from in the first place if it wasn't created from

If I would know the answer to that, I would be sitting here cherishing my Nobel price.

I can tell you the scientific genesis. In the beginning there was one singularity. This singularity contained everything we know now as the universe. At a singularity exploded it ejected matter, antimatter, dark energy in all directions. For what we can tell this explosion wasn't smooth. Small density fluctuations in the escaping matter started to coagulate, forming the suns, galaxies, planets etc.

That singularity contained all energy there is, therefore we can't make more. We can turn matter into energy, or antimatter if we could get our hands on it, but we cannot create energy out of nothing. Hence the second law.

What that singularity exactly was or what preceded it, we cannot tell because our laws of physics themselves were formed in the very first nanoseconds of the big bang. We wouldn't even know in how many dimensions we needed to think.

If you want to learn more about this I encourage you to read some works of Stephen Hawkins or Martin Rees (Our cosmic habitat). They write in understandable non-physical language.

What the God vs Science argument is concerned. You might call the singularity God if you like, or the creator. Religion and science are not that far apart, both deal with believing in things you cannot see or touch. When people call me a non-believer I always oppose stating that I believe, in strange-quarks, love-quarks, the possibility of a multi-universe and many other things. The only difference is that science tries to prove or disprove the things they believe in, whereas religion has long given up on that.

[Guest]

This argument is a very old one as it was first expressed by Albert Einstein. Unfortunately his argument was hijacked by the creationist bunch to justify their view of the creation. But the original argument does still hold. When you take in account the orbital theory and the hybridization of the atoms you can understand why ordered states are favored in cases of strong interaction.

How doeas one see that? Hybridization and orbitals aren't complexities, they don't even exist, exept in abstractitiy.

Experimentally, chaotic systems are very hard to maintain. A small push will bring them to order. Nanoseconds after the big bang the universe was in ultimate disorder, a hot sphere of expanding gases. Yet a miniscule imperfection made the the universe evolve in the rather ordered state we know now. Chaotic systems only need a very small seed to resolve into order. The opposite is not true.

How? All you need is a gas in a tube. That is as far as I know a chaotic state, and what easy push would turn that into order? Same thing with an ocean, what easy push would you need?

Experimentally, chaotic systems are very hard to maintain. A small push will bring them to order. Nanoseconds after the big bang the universe was in ultimate disorder, a hot sphere of expanding gases. Yet a miniscule imperfection made the the universe evolve in the rather ordered state we know now. Chaotic systems only need a very small seed to resolve into order. The opposite is not true.

How is the universe today more orderly? It's simply fizzling out, using the energy it had such a long time ago. Galaxies? Have you ever read Chaos Theory, and about tendencies towards small orderly states within chaotic ones?

[smiley]

How doeas one see that? Hybridization and orbitals aren't complexities, they don't even exist, exept in abstractitiy.

You can measure bond angles and you can measure orbitals. There are various methods available such as NMR, IR, neutron diffraction, mossbauer spectroscopy and luminescence spectroscopy to do so. We cannot locate the exact position, direction and velocity of the electron in the orbital, but we can say they exist.

How? All you need is a gas in a tube. That is as far as I know a chaotic state, and what easy push would turn that into order? Same thing with an ocean, what easy push would you need?

A gas in a tube is the ideal case. Thats why people almost always use gasses to explain thermodynamics. Interactions are the key to the formation of order and these are very low in a gas.

But even then you can induce a high degree of order in a gas. One example is a tornado which is characterized by a high degree of order and strong interactions between the air molecules. A tornado is thus an event with an extreme low probability, which forms almost spontaneously

Self organization can also be achieved in water.

Fluids can make a "phase transition" into more ordered states even while they are still fluid. The following experiment was first conducted in 1900 by Benard, with a tank which is taller than it wide, and with metal plates at top and bottom. Normally, liquid in the tank exists in a homogeneous state in which warmth is evenly distributed. If the tank is warmed gently through the bottom plate, then the heat spreads gradually, and forms a gradient, with the warmer liquid below and cooler liquid towards the top. These situations are states of stable equilibrium, or symmetry - that is, they are homogeneous in space and in time. There is no way of telling the difference between one place and another or one time and another.

However, if the bottom plate is heated to a certain threshold temperature, then the liquid re-organizes itself into a honeycomb of hexagonal convection cells known as Benard cells. In these cells liquid is rising on one side, and descending on the other. Convection cells are common in the earth's molten interior, in the atmosphere, and in the sun.

How is the universe today more orderly? It's simply fizzling out, using the energy it had such a long time ago. Galaxies? Have you ever read Chaos Theory, and about tendencies towards small orderly states within chaotic ones?

What's the chaotic region then? The end result of the universe "fizzling out" would be that all the matter is contained in suns, planets, black holes etc. These lumps of matter would be contained in an absolute vacuum. That would be the equivalent of all the gas in your tube coagulated in one small spot. I would call that an extremely improbable event if you adhere to the Clausius theorem.

[DefiledEngine]

You can measure bond angles and you can measure orbitals. There are various methods available such as NMR, IR, neutron diffraction, mossbauer spectroscopy and luminescence spectroscopy to do so. We cannot locate the exact position, direction and velocity of the electron in the orbital, but we can say they exist.

No, you can measure bond strengths, but you CAN'T measure orbitals because they are only mathematic probability calculations to simplify the complexity of chemical bonds.

In other words, they are figures of speech.

But even then you can induce a high degree of order in a gas. One example is a tornado which is characterized by a high degree of order and strong interactions between the air molecules. A tornado is thus an event with an extreme low probability, which forms almost spontaneously

And what makes the molecules move to create the first gusts of wind in the first place? Heat. From the earth and the sun.

What's the chaotic region then? The end result of the universe "fizzling out" would be that all the matter is contained in suns, planets, black holes etc. These lumps of matter would be contained in an absolute vacuum. That would be the equivalent of all the gas in your tube coagulated in one small spot. I would call that an extremely improbable event if you adhere to the Clausius theorem.

Considering the fact that the strongest theory in today's physics is that the universe will stretch out and indeed become a very cold, quiet and lonely place. Where planets and suns, like molecules and atoms in an expanding container, will be further and further away from each other. That is indeed entropy taking the big win in the end. And why would matter stay in the form of planets and suns? They'll probably slowly detoriate and matter will spread out into cosmos.

[MonteQuest]

There is only one problem with this thread. None of the people who really need a lesson in elementary physics is here listening! I've seen all kinds of posts about air powered cars, ZPE, etc. They need to get into this discussion. My position on Peak Oil is that we need to conserve, period. I gave up fighting the laws of physics years ago!

This is true. Let's encourage them to visit here. One of the reasons many don't read these posts or become involved is that they feel it is over their heads. We need to keep the discussion simple. In my opening post, I laid the basis for this thread:

MonteQuest quote:

The author of this thread wishes to present a discussion of the laws of thermodynamics for the layman, to help in the understanding of the resource and energy balance throughout the universe and the micro cosmos we call earth. The discussion will demonstrate the applicability of the laws of thermodynamics from the test tube to the beginning of the universe, often with simple and practical examples.

While this is a complex issue, let's try to keep the debate in simple terms and not get too abstract. Let's stay on topic: Simple and practical discussion for the layman.

Monte

[MonteQuest]

There are a number of experiments which show that order can increase with entropy.

smiley,

I showed you my tenth of a second example. Again, would you care to share your experiments that defy 2nd law?

Until a good definition of entropy is found the theory of thermodynamics is severely handicapped, in a sense that it is unable to describe or predict many of the processes which are so important to humans.

And once again, which processes are you referring to that thermodynamics can not describe or predict?