Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Rudder
The word, "entropy," is functional in three realms, according to most sources. And they are: 1. Thermodynamics, 2. Statistics and 3. "Laws of the Universe"

Unfortunately, the real definition of entropy doesn't come from any of these three areas, but from information theory. Thermodynamics is basically transaction theory mathematics applied to enthalpy, transaction theory being not totally unrelated to information theory.

A living organism is a relatively closed, or isolated, ongoing chemical prosess. Being closed, it would achieve inertness when the fuel ran out---entropy.

"relatively closed" is like "relatively pregnant"; there is no such condition. The system is either closed or it is open. A living organism is an open system; it maintains order by using external energy sources as a bulwark against entropy. When energy is consumed by the organism, entropy is created at the energy source that is far greater than the entropy reduced in the organism. Living organisms, in effect, radiate entropy away from themselves externally after consuming enthalpy from external sources. If you take into account the entropy created at the energy source, it is vastly larger than the entropy reduced in the organism. Incidentally, this is trivially measurable. It turns out that organisms generally have a poorer conversion efficiency than a diesel engine; the conversion loss is just another source of entropy (which gets radiated away as waste heat and other things). And like a diesel engine, you have to keep supplying fuel if you want it to keep running (and consequentally pumping out more entropy). You can create things that have low entropy while consuming enthalpy, but thermodynamics says the enthalpy conversion loss in the construction process must exceed the entropy reduction in the constructed entity. In practice, this is never violated by organisms or engineers.

My contention is that the closed chemically-reactive systems, aka: life forms, forestall entropy ( e.g., inertness) by ingestiing more energy than they expend.

Entropy isn't inertness, but yes, this is generally true. However, they don't ingest more energy than they expend, rather they ingest energy and some of it is turned into useful work and some of it is converted into entropy, where the entropy reduced by "useful work" is less than the entropy created from the enthalpy transfer. By converting external enthalpy into entropy, organisms reduce their own entropy. On Earth, we have a vast entropy generator and enthalpy source otherwise known as the sun. As long as the sun provides the enthalpy to dump the entropy elsewhere, living organisms will be able to build cells.

406 posted on 02/06/2002 9:34:51 AM PST by tortoise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies ]


To: tortoise
I am using an old, and perhaps simplistic, definition of entropy, one that may pre-date information theory. The crux of the one I was using is the phrase: "...hypothesized tendency toward uniform inertness." The "real definition" you mention in a way that causes me to think it supplanted earlier definitions, at least as far as you're concerned. I lifted my definiton straight out of a Random House dictionary. According to you, this source must be incorrect--at least by now.

Other than this issue we seem to have a mutual consensus on the matter.

421 posted on 02/06/2002 1:09:39 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson