Physicists Rewrite the Fundamental Law That Leads to Disorder

www.quantamagazine.org ^

[algore]

In all of physical law, there’s arguably no principle more sacrosanct than the second law of thermodynamics — the notion that entropy, a measure of disorder, will always stay the same or increase.

“If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations,” wrote the British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington in his 1928 book The Nature of the Physical World.

“If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.” No violation of this law has ever been observed, nor is any expected.

But something about the second law troubles physicists. Some are not convinced that we understand it properly or that its foundations are firm. Although it’s called a law, it’s usually regarded as merely probabilistic: It stipulates that the outcome of any process will be the most probable one (which effectively means the outcome is inevitable given the numbers involved).

Yet physicists don’t just want descriptions of what will probably happen. “We like laws of physics to be exact,” said the physicist Chiara Marletto of the University of Oxford. Can the second law be tightened up into more than just a statement of likelihoods?

A number of independent groups appear to have done just that. They may have woven the second law out of the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics — which, some suspect, have directionality and irreversibility built into them at the deepest level. According to this view, the second law comes about not because of classical probabilities but because of quantum effects such as entanglement.

It arises from the ways in which quantum systems share information, and from cornerstone quantum principles that decree what is allowed to happen and what is not. In this telling, an increase in entropy is not just the most likely outcome of change. It is a logical consequence of the most fundamental resource that we know of — the quantum resource of information. Quantum Inevitability

Thermodynamics was conceived in the early 19th century to describe the flow of heat and the production of work. The need for such a theory was urgently felt as steam power drove the Industrial Revolution, and engineers wanted to make their devices as efficient as possible.

In the end, thermodynamics wasn’t much help in making better engines and machinery. Instead, it became one of the central pillars of modern physics, providing criteria that govern all processes of change.

[21twelve]

That isn’t the exact quote, but that was the first thing that came to my mind.

The second thing that came to mind was Norm MacDonald talking about science vs. faith. “Okay - so I get it that faith is just that - faith. But why should I listen to a bunch of scientists when they talk about God? They are never right. You had that one guy, ya know, that figured out the sun revolved around the earth. Then some other guy comes along and say ‘Hey - the earth revolves around the sun!’ They are always figuring out new stuff.”

Part comedy, part truth imho.

[21twelve]

“Organizations become stagnant and die with out challenges and strife. Does this happen in nature?”

In a mature forest in the NW you get fir trees and ferns and moss. I’m sure a naturalist can find a lot more, but they are pretty void of deer, elk, and not many small animals either.

Clear cut some large swathes that opens it up to grasses and vegetation the critters can actually eat brings a lot of biodiversity in and makes it grow and thrive.

However, both places serve their purpose and a balance needs to be maintained. I’m a big fan of balance and moderation in all things. I don’t think it would be good for business to be in chaos ALL the time.

About the only thing that thrives on chaos is government and the politicians. Even if they have to create their own crises.

[PIF]

then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations,

—
The ones we use today are reformulated by Oliver Heaviside who changed 4 of Maxwell’s field equations into vector equations and discarded the other 196 as abominations. So we are really talking about Heaviside, not Maxwell.

[Scrambler Bob]

What about the ‘settled science’?
= = =

Is that when science floats down to the bottom as dregs?

Like entropy?

[Scrambler Bob]

If nature abhors a vacuum, does nature abhor order?
= = =

Well, look in my garage.

Both are shown to be true.

And one of my corollaries: Flat surfaces are Gravity interrupters.