|
Author
|
Topic: Is 2nd Law a special case of 4th Law?
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 11. October 2006 13:24
Sal, I notice you have in recent posts talked about 4th law entropy (30 Sept and 2 Oct):
quote:
Entropy described by the 4th and 2nd law cannot be a creative force, only a destructive force
quote:
The issue of both thermal (2nd law) entropy and configurational entropy (what is now addressed by the 4th law) entropy was stated in the seminal 1984 book, Mystery of Life's Origin
There are other places too where you have talked thus. Although I know what you mean when you talk of 4th law entropy [i.e. 4th law version (1) in my 3 Oct post - CSI is declining] I would like to challenge you that really there is no such thing as a separate 4th law type of entropy , i.e. that "configurational entropy" is nothing more than another form of 2nd law entropy - i.e. that entropy as a measure only has meaning withing the context of the 2nd law. To demonstrate this to you I will refer to The Mystery of Life's Origin. Take a look at equation (8-13)
Del(G)= Del(H)-T.Del(Sth)-T.Del(Sc)
G=Gibbs Free Energy, H=Enthalpy, Sth=Thermal Entropy and Sc=Configuration entropy. N.B. Del(Sth) and Del(Sc) can be combined to Del(Sth+Sc) suggesting that Sc is of the same nature as Sth. In fact both Sth and Sc can be related to respective Shannon entropies of the molecular thermal motions and the polymer (DNA or protein)code respectively. Rewrite (8-13) as (8-13.1):
[Del(G)/kT]= [Del(E)/kT]- Del(Sth)/k- Del(Sc)/k
Note for heuristic reasons I have replaced H with the system internal energy E - since in biological systems there is practically no volume change. k=Boltzmann's constant. We can read this as follows (8-13.2):
[Del(G)/kT]= Shannon Entropy lost from external Universe to the system - Shannon Entropy increase in thermal motions of system - Shannon Entropy increase in any configurational coding within system.
The last two terms can be written as the change in - Eqn (8-2A)
-ln(Wth)-ln(Wc)=-ln(Wth.Wc)= -ln(Wp)
where Wp = the product omega space on both thermal configurations (no=Wth) and coding configurations (no=Wc). I hope you will agree from this that we only have one entity the total entropy (i.e. that of the universe plus system - and the system entropy is just one thing - albeit a composite thing).
As Thaxton, Bradley and Colson point out with life systems we have one serious problem - Del(E) is positive meaning that we have to put chemical energy into the system to first form polymers (i.e. entropy is withdrawn from the universe) and both Del(Sth) and Del(Sc) are negative - meaning that the life system itself is getting more ordered (i.e. its entropy also decreases). Thus in forming a life system the Shannon entropy of every component decreases in violation of the 2nd law. It is easy to understand why the configuration entropy reduces since Wc is very small as we are dealing with CSI. With regard to the Sth I quote:
quote:
Wickens has noted that polymerization reactions will reduce the number of ways the translational energy may be distributed, while generally increasing the possibilities for vibrational and rotational energy. A net decrease results in the number of ways the thermal energy may be distributed
This concurs with Richard's statement (Oct 1) quote:
In conventional thermodynamics the energy conducted by molecular bonds is ignorable because the kinetic energy of gas molecules far outweighs contributions due to bonds. However, the more complex a molecule is the more energy in can retain and the less quickly it can move translationally.
. Looking forward to your comments (also Richard's) - Chris
[ 11. October 2006, 14:04: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 11. October 2006 21:15
Perplexity, I thought that this statement of the "Law of Conservation of Information" (what I have called form #2 of 4th) from Nobel Laureate, Peter Medawar
in his book The Limits of Science (1984) might be interesting and helpful:
quote:
“No process of logical reasoning – no mere act of mind or computer programmable operation – can enlarge the information content of the axioms and premises or observation statements from which it proceeds”. Peter Medawar
A similar statement has been quoted by Richard:
quote:
What one does not put into the equation will not finally be given by the mathematics. James Franck
-Chris
[ 12. October 2006, 06:29: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
perplexity
Member
Member # 2675
|
posted 12. October 2006 06:23
“No process of logical reasoning – no mere act of mind or computer programmable operation – can enlarge the information content of the axioms and premises or observation statements from which it proceeds”
That is excellent. I shall keep it as one of my stardard cut and paste quotes.
It reminds me of this one from W Ross Ashby:
"Pattern-recognition is a throwing away of information. Any device that can lose information can generalize."
-- RH.
IP: Logged
|
|
perplexity
Member
Member # 2675
|
posted 12. October 2006 06:30
and the Law of Requite Variety:
"The larger the variety of actions available to a control system, the larger the variety of perturbations it is able to compensate."
Or in the vernacular:
Small minds are buggered by big problems.
--- RH.
IP: Logged
|
|
Richard Oldani
Member
Member # 2606
|
posted 12. October 2006 10:47
To Chris and others following this thread,
Although both the thermal entropy and the configurational entropy can be expressed in terms of free energy they are very different in the way that energy was achieved. Thermal energy is obtained by the application of an external source of energy. Configurational energy is much more complex. Consider the following quotes from "The mystery of life's origin" quote:
It is difficult to imagine how one could ever couple random thermal energy flow through the system to do the required configurational entropy work of selecting and sequencing.
The uniform failure in literally thousands of experimental attempts to synthesize protein or DNA under even questionable prebiotic conditions is a monument to the difficulty in achieving a high degree of information content, or specified complexity from the undirected flow of energy through a system.
Either the work---especially the organizational work---was coupled to the flow of energy in some way not yet understood, or else it truly was a miracle.
Throughout Chapters 7-9 we have analyzed the problems of complexity and the origin of life from a thermodynamic point of view. Our reason for doing this is the common notion in the scientific literature today on the origin of life that an open system with energy and mass flow is a priori a sufficient explanation for the complexity of life. We have examined the validity of such an open and constrained system. We found it to be a reasonable explanation for doing the chemical and thermal entropy work, but clearly inadequate to account for the configurational entropy work of coding (not to mention the sorting and selecting work). We have noted the need for some sort of coupling mechanism. Without it, there is no way to convert the negative entropy associated with energy flow into negative entropy associated with configurational entropy and the corresponding information. Is it reasonable to believe such a "hidden" coupling mechanism will be found in the future that can play this crucial role of a template, metabolic motor, etc., directing the flow of energy in such a way as to create new information?
The thermodynamic energy of a life system refers to the energy and mass flow which sustains life. The configurational energy was obtained gradually during the millions of years of evolution. If someone asked how much energy it would take to get a man to the moon and we calculated only the rocket fuel, that would be misleading. We must include the energy required to construct the rocket and the backup systems. As the above quotes from Chapter 9 state the thermal energy is very different from the configurational energy. We need to add in the energy of the coupling mechanism that "directs the flow of energy in such a way as to create new information." The problem is, how do we measure that energy? The reason it is not treated in the literature is for that very reason.
I am still trying to get ISCID to post my paper. I am not sure why it is taking so long.
Richard
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 12. October 2006 12:21
Richard, Surely you mean thermal entropy and configurational entropy rather than thermal energy and configurational energy? So glad to see this quote from The Mystery of Life's Origin - it summarizes things so nicely. I look forward to when your paper is up. Chris
IP: Logged
|
|
perplexity
Member
Member # 2675
|
posted 12. October 2006 13:11
re. "It is difficult to imagine how one could ever couple random thermal energy flow through the system to do the required configurational entropy work of selecting and sequencing."
Randomly configured, selected and sequenced?
Who is the "one" who couples?
This is obviously not safe sex.
-- RH.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 12. October 2006 20:11
re:"Who is the "one" who couples?"
D.I. Mendeleev categorized "His" ingredients!
IP: Logged
|
|
Richard Oldani
Member
Member # 2606
|
posted 12. October 2006 22:40
Chris, I switched from entropy to energy in the first sentence and never caught it. Thanks also for introducing me to "The Mystery of LIfe's Origins" which I found very stimulating. Richard
P.S. Perhaps He is the one who does the coupling.
IP: Logged
|
|
perplexity
Member
Member # 2675
|
posted 13. October 2006 05:42
re. "D.I. Mendeleev categorized "His" ingredients!"
"His" ingrediaets indeed.
Another sort of categorisation was attempted for instance by Walter Russell,
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8989/russtbl.gif
and to what extent should either attempt be regarded as complete?
Without meaning to be completely unhelpful, incomplete mathematics applied to incomplete evidence is in my view not so terribly likely to provide a completely safe verdict with due regard to the innocence of it all.
Also with regard to completeness, please consider this, for instance:
http://www.cerglobal.org/Detail.tpl?rnd=5037&cart=11587318579396517&sku=P10007
-- RH.
quote:
An equation is shown which connects Planck’s constant (h), the speed of light (c), the constant of gravity (G), the constant of electricity and Boltzmann’s constant (kbl). The important aspect in this equation is that it arrives at a function with a geometrical content in 10 dimensions of space:...
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 13. October 2006 07:50
As to The Coupler:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."
Chris
You wrote:
quote:
... with life systems we have one serious problem - Del(E) is positive meaning that we have to put chemical energy into the system to first form polymers (i.e. entropy is withdrawn from the universe) and both Del(Sth) and Del(Sc) are negative - meaning that the life system itself is getting more ordered (i.e. its entropy also decreases). Thus in forming a life system the Shannon entropy of every component decreases in violation of the 2nd law.
Is entropy withdrawn from the universe because the input of chemical energy is directed or would this same effect be present where the input is undirected?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 13. October 2006 17:07
quote:
Chris wrote:
I would like to challenge you that really there is no such thing as a separate 4th law type of entropy , i.e. that "configurational entropy" is nothing more than another form of 2nd law entropy
I respect that, however, I don't know how to reconcile that with ID literature short of re-defining the 2nd law. What is a bit amusing is that there are so many attempts at improving the definition of the 2nd law!!!
There probably is a way to formulate the laws which ever way we want to suit our application, however, I just don't quite see it for the following reasons:
Thermal entropy is often defined as the integral of heat energy change with respect to temperature. However 4th law entropy can be reduced in the face of rising thermal entropy.
Example: in an open system where there is information flow and heat flow into the system, the sytem can become more configurationally ordered by more thermally disordered (i.e. a manufacturing process where the raw materials are heated).
There are probably other more rigorous thought experiments, but I think that enough at least to justify reluctance to unifiy the the 4th law entropy into 2nd law entropy.
[ 13. October 2006, 17:08: Message edited by: Salvador T. Cordova ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Richard Oldani
Member
Member # 2606
|
posted 14. October 2006 05:39
quote:
Salvador wrote
I don't know how to reconcile that with ID literature short of re-defining the 2nd law.
Consider the following thought experiment. At the instant an organism dies the thermal entropy and the configurational entropy are intact. The body is warm and the chemical bonds are all in plcace. In terms of empirical laws, which means using measurable variables, there is nothing missing yet the organism has ceased to function. Clearly the empirical laws, 2nd and 4th, are inadequate to define death, so why do you think they have anything meaningful to say about ID?
IP: Logged
|
|
perplexity
Member
Member # 2675
|
posted 14. October 2006 10:55
re."At the instant an organism dies .... 2nd and 4th, are inadequate to define death,"
That is just a circular argument conjuring trick, a premise intelligently designed to justify the conclusion, or derived backwards from it.
More intelligently, what would actually define the famous instant as a scientific issue?
As a thought experiment, if consciousness is the criteria, one needs only to think of an energy in action but beyond our means to measure.
-- RH.
IP: Logged
|
|
Richard Oldani
Member
Member # 2606
|
posted 14. October 2006 11:21
quote:
As a thought experiment, if consciousness is the criteria, one needs only to think of an energy in action but beyond our means to measure.
Exactly. Life is something ephemeral, not able to be described by structural qualities. As you note, energy in its various forms is a good way to describe life. Entropy, on the other hand, is an observable property and for that reason should not be used exclusively to describe life or its origins. It is unfortunate that science keys on observables as though nothing else of importance exists.
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
