|
Author
|
Topic: Is 2nd Law a special case of 4th Law?
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 27. September 2006 05:16
Salvador
I am quite unable to deal with purely philosophical matters. So was Einstein.
"Upon reading books on philosophy, I learned that I stood there like a blind man in front of a painting. I can only grasp the inductive method...the works of speculative philosophy are beyond my reach."
Alice Calaprice, The New Quotable Einstein, page 193.
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 27. September 2006 12:41
John,
Greetings and thank you for joining our discussion. By the way, I'm pleased Engle has recognized your fine work.
I'm not a professional experimentalist and neither really a professional ID proponent theorist. My real work is in the brute machines in the aerospace and defense industry.
If some of this you find too esoteric I suppose its an artifact of my field of study. Brainstorms is to allow exploration of fanciful speculations.
I would hope you do not view this thread as representing hard experimental science but rather thinking out loud and gentleman pondering speculations and hypotheses which perhaps few others care about.
I already accept ID and I already accept much of your work as accurate. I also accept math and physics, but like my study of fields that I already accept as being valid (math and physics) so too are the musings offered in this discussion. It is not to prove ID or an evolutionary hypothesis, but rather to study the design in nature more closely as I would the laws of math and physics.
From an operational perspective, I think where some of this may lead is an explanation of how proteins seem to have figured out maxwell's demon. I'm of the opinion they have Specified Complexity which enables them to do this magical trick of temporarily "violating" the 2nd law at the quantum scale. So part of this discussion is to understand Specified Complexity and how it relates to the second law. I think it can eventually lead to operationally useful technologies, but at this stage, well, it just a fanciful brainstorm. I would not yet call what I've written serious science until it reaches the lab.
Good to see you here and at Uncommon Descent.
regards,
Salvador
[ 27. September 2006, 17:14: Message edited by: Salvador T. Cordova ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 27. September 2006 16:16
Salvador, I understand.
Proteins don't "temporarily violate" thermodynamic laws. To the extent that they are laws they can't be violated. The second law is no exception. Every system that has ever been actually measured shows that the second law is inviolate. What is remarkable only is the very high efficiency with which biological processes are carried out, in the order of 60-80%. I am not much of a theoretician I'm afraid. I miss not having a laboratory any more. That is where the truth will be disclosed and in fact is being disclosed much to my satisfaction.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 27. September 2006 20:17
Chris
About my die contraption, you write:
quote:
I have been thinking about how you would do such an experiment to the kind of precision you would need - but I have had difficulty thinking how. Do let us know how you get on and results.
Yes, it has been very difficult to build this mechanical device and the results so far have not been anything to write home about. I was thinking about magnets the other day. Would you, or anyone else for that matter, think this might be a fruitful avenue to pursue?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 27. September 2006 21:41
Mel,
I think it is a most helpful experiment because the very fact that one has difficulty getting the same boundary conditions at t=0 is perhaps the essence of the whole affair. All trajectories of the die are in one sense of zero entropy because they are classically deterministic. And yet when one thinks about the "ensemble" of say 1000 throws of real die then there is (whether you like it or not) some entropy present at t=0. This is by virtue of the fact that no matter how hard you try - not even in the world's best laboratory! - you could never get exactly the same coordinates. Construct a fine coordinate grid (Omega space) that would give the x,y,z,theta,phi position of the dice center, attitude and pitch angles and you will get entropy (i.e. low2(W) - W being the number of different microstates)). You will also have a different grid on the final space - the dice throw outcome and the positions of the die on the table - it too will have entropy. According to the 2nd law the entropy will increase. According to the 4th the SI information [-log2(Delta-omega/Omega)] - unlikely to be CSI !! will decrease.
Experimentally - if possible I would use some sort of piezo electric clamping system on x and y, with a removable registration plane below the dice for z. Then a swift simultaneous application of voltage to the piezo's for the release. In a sense precision is not the issue as one can always vary the distance to the table. More to the point; perhaps the interest is more in studying things like the entropy increase and the SI decrease. Having a larger and quantifiable "wobble" at t=0 may then be to the student's advantage. A simple electomagnetic die clamp may then be easier and best. Importance should be placed on a fast throughput system - then things like entropy and coordinate distributions would have more meaning and statistical accuracy. Just some thoughts - Chris
[ 27. September 2006, 21:58: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 28. September 2006 00:38
The issue of the dice is interesting. At some point classical systems (like dice) will be subject to quantum uncertainties, and behavior will be either completely random or somewhat deterministic with a mix of random results.
For biology this is especially true since most of the interesting stuff happens at the quantum level.
In physics class the professor posed the question "can you stand a pencil on it's point?" The answer is "no" based on quantum uncertainties.
If the world were classical, one could zero out all the velocities and make everything balanced. However, in reality even something like this would be subject to quantum uncertainty. One can not simultaneously achieve zero velocity and absolute certainty of the pencil's orientation based on Heisenberg Uncertainty. It rather surprised me a macroscopic object like a pencil would be so sensitive to atomic uncertainties! Even in vibration-free, interference-free environment, the pencil cannot be stood on it's point.
The professor posed the question, "how fast will it take for the pencil to fall?"! I don't think anyone in the class figured out the answer, but he did the calculation. My jaw dropped....
The point being is that one can approximate determinism, but never exactly.
[ 28. September 2006, 00:42: Message edited by: Salvador T. Cordova ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 28. September 2006 16:02
What biological reactions happen at the quantum level?
[ 28. September 2006, 16:12: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 28. September 2006 17:08
quote:
What biological reactions happen at the quantum level?
Anything that happens at the level of individual molecules involved in processing information.
One reason DNA copying is not 100% accurate and error-correction is needed is because quantum effects induce noise into the copying process.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 28. September 2006 18:52
Salvador
I don't understand that I guess. The individual reactions in living systems are just like they are outside of living systems it seems to me except that they are under control. I just don't see a role for uncertainty in any of it I guess. I don't think we would have such high efficiencies if that were the case. I also don't see how quantum mechanics can be applied to living systems. While they apply at the subatomic level, what is their role in chemical kinetics? Quantum physics as near as I can determine has contributed nothing to our understanding of either ontogeny or phylogeny and very little to our understanding of ordinary biochemical reactions.
I hate to seem like such a skeptic but I just can't grasp the significance of it all.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 29. September 2006 07:50
William
Thank you for detailed input on the complexity of pi. I am satisfied with your analysis and am comfortable enough with most of your conclusions. However, I have one question if you will indulge me.
If pi is [m] k-complex [having no valid informational context], then how do the folks in Andromeda recognize it? We choose the truncated string to represent the ratio [circumference / diameter] for a circle. As you say,
quote:
As soon as a random number [{m}K-complexity] is chosen and used as a "code" or a "key," (and the system in question is re-configured to unlock only in response to this specific sequence/code) then this formerly random number has been granted (by the intelligent designer) a valid functional informational context.
ET must recognize the context in order to un-lock the information, true?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 29. September 2006 09:34
Chris
As always, I value your input and agree that the electromagnetic die clamp would be easiest and best. Note that my aim is not to roll the same number each time. I already have a mechanism that will do that. If I simply place the die between my two fingers with the six dots facing up and then set the die on the table, I will get a “roll” of six every time [trajectory classically deterministic]. That is, I am not trying to eliminate the entropy at t = 0 but I would like to reduce it to controllable and quantifiable levels [play with the number of microstates at the boundary]. Once these techniques are established, we could use statistical analysis to study the effect created on the space of outcomes [final Omega space].
My conjecture is that there will be a smooth curve between no control at the boundary [shaking the die in your hand and releasing] and total control at the boundary [place between two fingers and set down].
Sal
As you have noted the possible mix of truly random elements with deterministic laws would make for a very interesting system [the board game Monopoly – rules of play and roll of the dice]. It was the suggestion by Chris, some posts ago and on a thread some distance away, that prompted me to think of the die contraption. His suggestion was that the designer might have willingly included a random element in the workings of the otherwise designed universe.
I glean from your posts that you take very seriously the role of random processes in our universe [Heisenberg Uncertainty]. As Chris and John are aware, my perspective is very different [example: There is no such physical object as a pencil that comes to a geometric point]. I do not wish to divert this productive thread by debating this issue. However, I will ask this question: Do all agree that the role of Heisenberg Uncertainty must be limited at the maco level in order that living systems can be sustained?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 29. September 2006 12:47
I see no role for quantum physics in either ontogeny or phylogeny and no role for statistics either. Statistics assumes a role for chance. Living systems don't operate that way and never did. Of course that is just my opinion, but not mine alone.
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134.
I regard the entire history of the organic world as a determined "prescribed" phenomenon which, as far as evolution is concerned, has run its course, never to be resumed.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 29. September 2006 15:00
William
This is a post script to my last comment.
Does not the truncated string we use to represent pi have a specific [fixed even] context? If so, there exists not merely an informational implication but rather, a valid informational context. Upon the recognition of context the ratio [information] is immediately unlocked? To use programming jargon, any truncated string of the decimal representation of pi of sufficient length is a “reserved” string permanently attached to the context of a circle and the ratio C/d. I believe 2nd class said something like this in an earlier post.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 29. September 2006 20:01
John,
It is also my view that the path that evolution in the past has taken has been prescribed – and probably could not have taken any different course. [The interesting thing here is that there had to be a correlation of what was going on in the in the plant and animal kingdoms with what was going on geologically and climate wise – any comments?]
The issue as to where quantum mechanics comes into the whole show is tricky. Mel and Sal have touched on something that I think needs to be discussed. The problem I have is that all chemistry [and thence biochemistry] is in a fundamental way governed by quantum mechanics – i.e. stability of molecules, reaction rates etc. If Planck’s constant had been a smidgeon different we would not have biology.
PALEONTOLOGY: Although the course of evolution may be prescribed – “chance” processes could and I think probably do have a very dominant role in the degradation of information (CSI) on the Genome of a species. In your An Evolutionary Manifesto, from which I have learnt so much!, you include this diagram from the work of Otto Schindewolf, Basic Questions in Paleontology (1993) p142.
You point out that this pattern of growth, stasis and finally distortion and extinction follow those of ontogeny and life cycle. With the "distortion" and "extinction" phases we do seem to be seeing here a degradation of the ammonite genome (Agree?). Is this “prescribed” or has it occurred due to “chance” mutations (e.g. oxidizing chemicals and radiation). To be honest I don’t know – but in that the entropy (disorder) increase of a system is normally attributed to “chance” I would favor this explanation. In that the extinction seems to coincide with the K/T boundary (may even have caused it?!) I am not so sure - is this just coincidence?
POPULATION GENETICS: In the mid 80s Fred Hoyle showed demonstrably using his own mathematical construction of population genetics [ which included “chance” mutations ] that the genome would get eroded over time. Indeed he showed that “fitness” would decline exponentially .
quote:
..there is a slow genetic erosion, however, which natural selection cannot prevent (Hoyle)
Then in the mid 90s professional population geneticist; A.S. Kondrashov (In his paper “ Why have we not died 100 times over ” J.Theor.Biol 175; 583 (1995) developed essentially the same equation as Hoyle (vindicating him from ridicule!) – an exponential decline in “fitness”. The degradation time-scales for mammals were estimated at around 10-100million years .
quote:
accumulation of very small deleterious mutations (VSDMs) acts like a timebomb. The existence of vertebrate lineages ..should be limited to 10e6-10e7 generations. (Kondrashov)
Incidentally I took the above two quotations quotations from the really super new book Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome by John C. Sanford. John has been in the field of plant genetics all his life – a real professional. The book is scholarly and written for those with only a modest background in genetics. I really recommend it to all.
The 4th law (at least in one form) deals with the decline of CSI, and both the above perspectives seem to provide strong evidence for this - Chris
[ 30. September 2006, 05:49: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Richard Oldani
Member
Member # 2606
|
posted 29. September 2006 22:29
If you don't mind I'd like to jump in here to give a little different perspective of quantum mechanics in relation to the second law. The following is taken from one of my published papers.
The laws of thermodynamics were derived by subjecting matter to relatively large pressure and temperature differences. In order to conduct the large energy flows particle properties such as Avogadro's number, molecular mass, and molecular velocity figured prominently in its founding principles. For example, increased heat energy is conceived of in terms of the kinetic energy of molecules leading to increasing disorder in a system. From the second law of thermodynamics this leads to an increased entropy and suggests the eventual “heat death of the universe”.
On the other hand, the increasing energy that occurs during spontaneous emission (as in black body radiation) may be conceived of in terms of field as a continuous classical excitation followed by a discrete quantum mechanical decay. During excitation independently oscillating wave train fields superimpose randomly as they resonate with a bound electron. If a sufficient field intensity is realized the electron will be raised to a higher energy state along a continuous trajectory. A photon is then released and the electron returns to the ground state. Thus spontaneous emission may be described in terms of a transformation of field from continuous to discrete forms, or equivalently as a localization of field energy. In the field interpretation of increasing energy the mass of the electron provides an insignificant contribution to energy flow. This is because energy flows may also be transmitted by molecular bonds. The flow of energy establishes a direction in time for both models, but the two are distinct because the atomic oscillator reverses the trend to disorder by transforming energy from a diffuse to a localized form. The difference between these models will perhaps be made more apparent by considering a real gas. Diatomic gas molecules collide inelastically so that in addition to the disordered energy of kinetic motion they absorb energy in ordered form with respect to the quantized energy levels of molecular bonds.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
