Don Mikulecky replies:
http://views.vcu.edu/~mikuleck/
John J. Kineman wrote:
> Response to Don (who was responding to Halvor N?ss).
>
> Don wrote:
> >Classical Thermodynamics deals with equilibria. It has little bearing on far
> >from equilibrium situations. This has been written about by hundreds of
> >people. I have a book which deals with these issues "Application of Network
> >Thermodynamics to Problems in Biomedical Engineering" NYU Press, 1993.
> Don't
> >be misled by the title. The essence of the ability of non-equilibrium
> systems
> >to create elaborate structure including life is in the coupling of precesses.
> >The second law requires that the OVERALL entropy production be positive.
> Thus
> >negative terms in any set of coupled non-equilibrium processes' entropy
> >production merely need be compensated by larger positive ones.
> .....
> >This is thermodynamics which is true independent of mechanism.
> >
>
> This is my understanding of thermo as well, based on my now archaic physics
> training, and I guess that it is still valid for most physicists, although
> not without some troubling questions. For example, the theory invokes some
> cosmic notions by saying that ultimately, universally (in time and space)
> entropy must be decreasing, and that reversals are interventions in this
> overall trend (like eddies in a stream).
The only rigorous proof of the second law is that due to Carotheodry. It is
topological in nature. It depends on one empirical fact, namely that there be
points in state space which are inaccessable from a given state along some
prescribed path. Even at the cosmic level, it is difficult to imagine that
these
very general conditions can be somehow violated. Usually what happens, as had
happened in the case I was responding to, is that some less clear formulation of
the second law is posed, often an erroneous one, and then shown to be violated.
A
thourough reading of Caratheodry's proof should set anyone straight on the
universality of the second law. My book devotes an appendix to this elegant
piece
of science.
> But the origins and end of the
> universe are hotly debated. Is there not an inconsistency between this view
> and the notion of a cyclical (closed) universe where ultimate collabpse
> leads to another big-bang? If all events since the big bang (I assume, but
> do not know for sure, that the Hawkingesque reconstructioin of events since
> the big bang is consistent with thermodynamics) and leading up to the
> predicted end of the universe result in an overall increase in entropy, how
> does it again decrease for the next cycle? Where is the process that resets
> it?
Asking for a mechanism is out side thr realm of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics
is
true for all realizable mechanisms and therefore independent of mechanism. The
difficulty in dealing with origin of the universe thermodynamics is the
inability
to formulate the event in a thermodynamic context. Just like situations in
nature
where turbulence or some extreme condition makes the assumption of local
equilibrium break down. Then thermodynamic variables loose their definition.
Clearly, if the variables are not definable, the laws no longer have the same
meaning.
Entropy is the worst offender here. Miexner showed long ago (Miexner's paradox)
that any input/output description of a non-linear non-equilibrium system has no
unique entropy associated with it. The best that can be obtained is a FAMILY of
entropy functions! Thus far from equilibrium thermodynamics has little to do
with notions like entropy.
> I don't think it is fair to say that such questions are out of the
> realm of the theory (or at least its foundations), because the theory
> itself invokes a notion of cosmic order.
>
> So, my question is: Is there a corresponding universal process (or
> supervening theory such as thermo) that operates in the opposite direction
> - i.e., to decrease entropy, and do we know which process (or trend) will
> ultimately win out (recognizing that classical theormodynamics may be a
> limited view built on the study of observable physical systems). I can't
> help believing that "life" as a process is inadequately described, and that
> somehow it represents such a process at its essence, certainly in the sense
> of an intervening process, but I think the jury should still be out on
> whether it may also be viewed as a supervening trend, which then connects
> it to all the things we scientists find quite problematic to deal with for
> fundamental epistemological reasons.
>
Not just "life" but all "complex" things are inadequately described. This is by
definition. Complex systems have distinct ways of being interacted with and
described. No one way is adequate. Reductionism fails and new ways of thinking
are needed. The best new approach to understanding the difference between
living
organisms and machines is relational and is laid out in Rosen's book "Life
Itself".
> -----------------------------------------------
> John J. Kineman, Physical Scientist/Ecologist
> National Geophysical Data Center
> 325 Broadway E/GC1 (3100 Marine St. Rm: A-152)
> Boulder, Colorado 80303 USA
> (303) 497-6900 (phone)
> (303) 497-6513 (fax)
> jjk@ngdc.noaa.gov (email)
> (303) 497-6513 (fax)
Respectfully,
Don Mikulecky
--------------9FD8DF5DE037F36098211E90
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Don Mikulecky
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Don Mikulecky
n: Mikulecky;Don
org: Department of Physiology, MCV/VCU
email;internet: mikuleck@hsc.vcu.edu
title: Professor
note: First International Laboratory for the Application of Analysis
Situs to P hysiology(FILASAP)
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version: 2.1
end: vcard
--------------9FD8DF5DE037F36098211E90--