Posted on 12/21/2003 7:13:14 PM PST by UnklGene
Beads of doubt: Second Law of Thermodynamics untrue? -
By Dr David Whitehouse BBC News Online science editor
One of the most important principles of physics, that disorder, or entropy, always increases, has been shown to be untrue.
This result has profound consequences for any chemical or physical process that occurs over short times and in small regions
ANU team
Scientists at the Australian National University (ANU) have carried out an experiment involving lasers and microscopic beads that disobeys the so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics, something many scientists had considered impossible.
The finding has implications for nanotechnology - the design and construction of molecular machines. They may not work as expected.
It may also help scientists better understand DNA and proteins, molecules that form the basis of life and whose behaviour in some circumstances is not fully explained.
No discussion
Flanders and Swann wrote a famous song entitled The First And Second Law about what entropy meant and its implications for the physical world. It has become a mantra for generations of scientists.
The law of entropy, or the Second Law of Thermodynamics, is one of the bedrocks on which modern theoretical physics is based. It is one of a handful of laws about which physicists feel most certain.
So much so that there is a common adage that if anyone has a theory that violates the Second Law then, without any discussion, that theory must certainly be wrong.
The Second Law states that the entropy - or disorder - of a closed system always increases. Put simply, it says that things fall apart, disorder overcomes everything - eventually. But when this principle is applied to small systems such as collections of molecules there is a paradox.
Human scales
This 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.
Fraction of a second
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.
Emerging science
The scientists say their finding could be important for the emerging science of nanotechnology. Researchers envisage a time when tiny machines no more than a few billionths of a metre across surge though our bodies to deliver drugs and destroy disease-causing pathogens.
This research means that on the very small scales of space and time such machines may not work the way we expect them to.
Essentially, the smaller a machine is, the greater the chance that it will run backwards. It could be extremely difficult to control.
The researchers said: "This result has profound consequences for any chemical or physical process that occurs over short times and in small regions."
The ANU work is published in Physical Review Letters.
Ah, yes---a typical "biblical creationist" proof---no science whatsoever involved.
Again--if your perspective of the Second Law were correct, then physical phenomena that ARE KNOWN TO OCCUR would be impossible (such as life itself--not just evolution).
Now, life obviously DOES exist, so your proof is obviously wrong.
With respect, I still maintain it is reasonable to posit a designer for the appearance of design rather than "some process".
LOL, WW, you are wound waaaaay too tight! Post 192 was obviously in jest! (Interesting to see who got it and who didn't, though.)
--Boot
reokvm, mvti t.we[pw83 mckjdh ytophk fdgey!!!
--Boot
It had to be thus!
--Boot
Oops, now I'm the one not getting it!
--Boot Hill
For a bit there, your posting style resembled that of former freeper f.Christian ("effdot").
--Boot
Well, 90% in jest!
--Boot Hill
Not unless the former poster started taking syntax meds.
Hey, you only THINK it was in jest--I've seen stuff from the "BC" crowd that was even more incoherent, and which they expect to have taken seriously.
How would I know? Thanks to entropy, my thinking is becoming more and more disordered, even as we speak. But with any luck, time reversal will take over and what is random incoherence today will become a blinding stroke of genius tomorrow!
Merry Christmas --Boot Hill
Hey, I suspect that on the quantum level, even time will turn out to be reversible--so there IS hope for you.
Please explain this in detail. Preferably by doing actual calculations of the quantities involved.
If you can't, one can only surmise you're talking through your hat.
PS don't confuse evolution and the origin of life in your calculations.
And if you can, one can only assume the same.
Your reply is not requested, as I am quite sure that neither of us will be convinced. However, thank you for your reply.
Muleteam1
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.