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

Skip to comments.

Entropy Reversed
BBC News ^ | 18 July, 2002 | Dr David Whitehouse

Posted on 07/18/2002 4:58:56 PM PDT by Karl_Lembke

The Second Law Can be Beat

One of the most important principles of physics, that disorder, or entropy, always increases, has been shown to be untrue.

....

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: 2ndlaw; crevolist; entropy; physics; thermodynamics
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last
The naive formulation of the Second Law of Thermo, namely that everything runs down and entropy always increases, has been known to be wrong for decades.

Now there's experimental proof.

1 posted on 07/18/2002 4:58:56 PM PDT by Karl_Lembke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *crevo_list
Bookmarking....
2 posted on 07/18/2002 5:01:12 PM PDT by Karl_Lembke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Karl_Lembke
The thing is, many people try to apply it to Earth's biosphere, which isn't a closed system. If the second law is valid on some scale, it isn't valid when energy is added to the system. Since Earth has a constant supply of energy added from the outside (i.e. the Sun), the second law is useless for describing our biosphere.
3 posted on 07/18/2002 5:14:38 PM PDT by mykej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mykej
Don't tell that to the "Earth is 6K years old" crowd here at FR.
4 posted on 07/18/2002 5:16:46 PM PDT by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Karl_Lembke
If the second law of thermodynamics held for systems with energy input, your air conditioning would not work.
5 posted on 07/18/2002 5:22:56 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Karl_Lembke
This hints at nano-scale devices that could be described as exhibiting "perpetual motion".
6 posted on 07/18/2002 5:23:10 PM PDT by apochromat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Senator Pardek
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.

7 posted on 07/18/2002 5:30:52 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Essentially, the smaller a machine is, the greater the chance that it will run backwards. It could be extremely difficult to control.

I hate it when I put my car in drive and it runs in reverse. That's why I got a bigger car.

8 posted on 07/18/2002 5:37:36 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Karl_Lembke
Now there's experimental proof.

...at nanoscales. It holds true at macroscales.

9 posted on 07/18/2002 5:37:52 PM PDT by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
...at nanoscales. It holds true at macroscales.

I broke more laws when I was younger, too.




10 posted on 07/18/2002 5:44:33 PM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
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.

Does this sentence mean that for a tenth of a second it may or may not have obeyed the Second Law but thereafter it did obey the second law?

11 posted on 07/18/2002 5:49:28 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
The first trick would probably be to create a large network of nanoscale devices, either in a flat array or placed in a sifting configuration on a convoluted support. It could function as a molecular pump or a cooling device, perhaps, driven by a molecular ratchet excited by local Brownian motion. Probably the bigger trick is to get the device to be practically wearout-frees over extended use.
12 posted on 07/18/2002 5:52:53 PM PDT by apochromat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Does this sentence mean that for a tenth of a second it may or may not have obeyed the Second Law but thereafter it did obey the second law?

Correct.

13 posted on 07/18/2002 5:53:49 PM PDT by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Does this sentence mean that for a tenth of a second it may
or may not have obeyed the Second Law but thereafter it did obey
the second law?

Quantum foam giveth, quantum foam taketh away.  :)

14 posted on 07/18/2002 5:54:14 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: apochromat
A bigger trick is getting any kind of net gain from this as the gain or loss of energy was (I think) equally likely.
15 posted on 07/18/2002 5:58:27 PM PDT by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
Perhaps it's possible for reversible reaction sites to overlap and to be controllably actuated in order to push ions, atoms, or molecules extended distances between irreversible reaction points along a gradient. It would have to work at room temperature by using the ambient kinetic energy freely available there, to be of obvious usefulness.

It's not much different from life in the presence of food, just a redefinition of free energy. I could be wrong, of course.
16 posted on 07/18/2002 6:19:13 PM PDT by apochromat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Karl_Lembke
I watched a fly sleeping on a slow-moving ceiling fan one day for a whole class period; to this day I have wondered what he was thinking.
17 posted on 07/18/2002 6:29:38 PM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
"Essentially, the smaller a machine is, the greater the chance that it will run backwards. It could be extremely difficult to control."

Yup, this happens from time to time with small 2-stroke engines. :)

18 posted on 07/18/2002 7:35:37 PM PDT by Don Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
"I watched a fly sleeping on a slow-moving ceiling fan one day for a whole class period; to this day I have wondered what he was thinking."

He wasn't thinking anything, he was asleep.

19 posted on 07/18/2002 7:37:48 PM PDT by Don Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Or did you mean that you were sleeping on the slow-moving fan? :)
20 posted on 07/18/2002 7:38:35 PM PDT by Don Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

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.

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