Deviation from 2. law of thermodynamics???

Oddity · Post by **Oddity** » 2003-01-17 04:58pm

http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/7/11

A deviation from the second law of thermodynamics has been demonstrated experimentally for the first time.

Holy shit!

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-17 05:07pm

It only works within small systems, not over a large area. It may have some applications, but overall it's more a curiosity than anything else, IMHO. It doesn't negate the second law as an overall law of the universe.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-01-17 07:04pm

I don't know. From what I read in the article, it seems that you have a small system with an even smaller system within which is having energy injected into it, and this might account for the "reverse entropy" fluxuation. But I really don't see how this amounts to a violation of the Second Law on any scale.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-01-17 09:17pm

Small systems can violate the 2nd law. Thermodynamics is the "average" behavior of a larger system.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-17 09:22pm

As Stephen Hawking said, the second law of thermodynamics is essentially a probabilistic law. As such, it can theoretically be broken here and there (just as it is theoretically possible for one man to win the lottery three times in a row), although it must hold true over time and for appreciable scales (again with the lottery analogy, over long periods of time and large numbers of lottery draws, it would obviously average out to a random situation rather than continuing to deterministically choose that one guy).

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-01-17 09:29pm

Don't let the fundies find out about this, it will only confuse them.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-17 09:35pm

Zoink wrote:Don't let the fundies find out about this, it will only confuse them.

They don't even understand the concept of closed vs open systems. There is nothing about science which does not confuse them; that's why they turn so readily to idiots selling stupid answers that don't require the agony of thought.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-01-18 12:53am

thermodynamics has been shown to be invalid for various situations such as virtual particles for quite a long time. o.o

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-18 03:42am

kojikun wrote:thermodynamics has been shown to be invalid for various situations such as virtual particles for quite a long time. o.o

That's like saying conservation of energy is invalid for open systems. It's kind of a "duh" idea. Thermodynamics wasn't conceived with things like virtual particles and Planck constants in mind.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-18 03:42pm

Durandal wrote:
kojikun wrote:thermodynamics has been shown to be invalid for various situations such as virtual particles for quite a long time. o.o
That's like saying conservation of energy is invalid for open systems. It's kind of a "duh" idea. Thermodynamics wasn't conceived with things like virtual particles and Planck constants in mind.

True. Quantum physics is just weird to those of us used to thinking in a Newtonian or Einsteinian way. Heck, it's even spawned a new field of philosophy trying to understand basic principles of though based on quantum activity (for example, can both A and Not A be true at the same time? In some experiments in quantum physics, it seems to be so. That violates one of the ancient philosophical laws, which is driving philosophers nuts writing new laws to match the physics of the world).