Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Entropy Thread (merged)

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Re: <>

Unread postby RacerJace » Mon 12 Dec 2005, 01:58:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he faster we streamline our technology, the faster we speed up the transforming process, the faster available energy is dissipated.


I think what MonteQuest is referring to here is along the lines of Jevon's Paradox

i.e. put simply: the more efficient your technology becomes at converting energy to a useful form the more quickly you will consume it.

This argument stands for all things that leverage the available fossil fuel resources more heaviliy... such as hybrid vehicles. It allows the consumer growth to continue and maitains the dependance on a diminishing resource.
User avatar
RacerJace
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun 16 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Australia

Re: <>

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 12 Dec 2005, 02:35:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', ' ') This doesn't have anything to say about the utility of technology or the ability of technology to improve our lot.


I've never said that technology didn't have a utility or that it didn't improve our lot.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: <>

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 12 Dec 2005, 03:00:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RacerJace', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he faster we streamline our technology, the faster we speed up the transforming process, the faster available energy is dissipated.


I think what MonteQuest is referring to here is along the lines of Jevon's Paradox

i.e. put simply: the more efficient your technology becomes at converting energy to a useful form the more quickly you will consume it.


Yes, one can argue that point as well. It may have been the better way to go, however, Jevon's Paradox is in great dispute here as well. 8)

Entropy is hard to argue and hard to explain as logical entropy and thermal entropy are interrelated: technology creates a thermodynamic entropy decrease (increase in efficiency) at the expense of an even greater increase in thermal entropy somewhere else, and creates logical entropy in the form of pollution or matter dissipation. Thermal entropy can be quantified, logical or matter entropy, while just as irreversible, is not a measurable entity; it just tends towards "chaos."

You can't recycle the dissipated rubber thrown to the winds as you drive your car down the road. That matter has gone from useable to un-useable forever along with the thermal energy within it.

And, it takes energy to clean up the pollution you make. Ever wonder why we created "external costs?" If you don't, you can't get ahead. Why? There is no such thing as a free lunch.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: <>

Unread postby bobcousins » Mon 12 Dec 2005, 09:25:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'E')ntropy is hard to argue and hard to explain as logical entropy and thermal entropy are interrelated: technology creates a thermodynamic entropy decrease (increase in efficiency) at the expense of an even greater increase in thermal entropy somewhere else,


If I get in my car and drive somewhere, where is the thermodynamic entropy decrease?

The 2nd Law of thermodynamics only refers to thermodynamic entropy. There is no law of logical entropy.

The broken vase you describe is an example of the anthropomorphic interpretation of entropy, and is both trivial and irrelevant.

You are still making claims that are quite unjustified by physical laws. To be honest, I think you are desparately trying to bend facts to meet your theory, like you did with the steel discussion. It would be really good if you could get past this, then we could have a meaningful discussion of what is really important.

I am still not sure whether to laugh or cry about your statement that your weird version of entropy does not apply to living organisms. It's a real shame that the "chief guru" of Peak Oil makes ridiculous statements about science, it really undermines the whole debate.
It's all downhill from here
User avatar
bobcousins
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1164
Joined: Thu 14 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Left the cult
Top

Re: <>

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 12 Dec 2005, 10:44:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobcousins', 'T')he 2nd Law of thermodynamics only refers to thermodynamic entropy. There is no law of logical entropy.


Isn't that what I just said? I make admitted differences between the two, and yet you insist I don't know the difference?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')ogical entropy deals with the logrithmic probability of various states of order. You have to put numbers to it to quantify it. Even though there is an important distinction between the two meanings of entropy, the rule of 2nd law seems to apply nonetheless to the logical kind: entropy in a closed system can never decrease, i.e., physical things never organize themselves.

A broken vase never mends itself. A house not lived in and maintained, deteriorates. A room in disorder never comes to order without an input of energy.

Thus, I believe that this leads to great confusion when discussing entropy. Often one fails to remember the difference and they unintentionally blend together in the discussion.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: <>

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 12 Dec 2005, 11:00:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobcousins', 'I') am still not sure whether to laugh or cry about your statement that your weird version of entropy does not apply to living organisms.


What wierd version? Living organisms are open systems. They maintain their thermodynamic equillibrium by a constant flow-through of energy and matter to hold entropy at bay. This is known as non-equillibirum thermodynamics; completely in line with 2nd Law. If this flow-through stops, entropy rapidly increases and we rot. Pretty straight forward, I think.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: <>

Unread postby Ludi » Mon 12 Dec 2005, 14:02:05

I think in order to avoid these continuing debates, avoiding the use of the term "entropy" except in a strictly thermodynamic sense might be advisable. Because Monte seems to have clarified his use of the word about fifty times and he's still being attacked for using it "incorrectly."
Ludi
 

Re: <>

Unread postby nero » Mon 12 Dec 2005, 15:00:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his doesn't have anything to say about the utility of technology or the ability of technology to improve our lot.



I've never said that technology didn't have a utility or that it didn't improve our lot.


I'm sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant technology was able to improve the efficiency with which we use energy. And again the 2nd law which is what you were quoting doesn't have anything to say on the ability of technology to improve the efficiency with which we use useful energy to achieve our objetives.

Do you agree or disagreee?
Biofuels: The "What else we got to burn?" answer to peak oil.
User avatar
nero
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Top

Re: <>

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 12 Dec 2005, 15:16:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobcousins', ' ')If I get in my car and drive somewhere, where is the thermodynamic entropy decrease?


Everytime we use technology to reverse or halt entropy. A car will coast downhill, but it won't go uphill without an input of energy. Water doesn't flow uphill on it's own, it must be pumped.

But in doing so, an even greater increase in overall entropy occurs.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: <>

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 12 Dec 2005, 15:20:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', ' ')I'm sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant technology was able to improve the efficiency with which we use energy. And again the 2nd law which is what you were quoting doesn't have anything to say on the ability of technology to improve the efficiency with which we use useful energy to achieve our objetives.


Not talking about the ability of technology to improve our lot. I'm talking about the price we pay for doing so.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Angrist & Hepler', 'E')ven though society can effect local reductions in entropy, the general and universal trend of entropy increase easily swamps the anomalous but important efforts of civilized man. Each localized, man-made or machine made entropy decrease is accompanied by an even greater increase in entropy of the surroundings, thereby maintaining the required increase in total entropy.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: <>

Unread postby nero » Mon 12 Dec 2005, 15:21:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'E')ntropy is hard to argue and hard to explain as logical entropy and thermal entropy are interrelated: technology creates a thermodynamic entropy decrease (increase in efficiency) at the expense of an even greater increase in thermal entropy somewhere else, and creates logical entropy in the form of pollution or matter dissipation. Thermal entropy can be quantified, logical or matter entropy, while just as irreversible, is not a measurable entity; it just tends towards "chaos."



Now you are being sloppy with terminology:

The use of technology does not imply a decrease in entropy even locally.

An entropy decrease is not equivalent to an increase in efficiency.



With respect to your discourse on logical versus thermal energy it is a bit of a red herring. Entropy is entropy, thermal entropy is to logical entropy as viscosity is to inter-molecular forces. I'll leave it at that.
Biofuels: The "What else we got to burn?" answer to peak oil.
User avatar
nero
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Top

Re: <>

Unread postby nero » Mon 12 Dec 2005, 15:31:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'N')ot talking about the ability of technology to improve our lot. I'm talking about the price we pay for doing so.


Didn't I just try to clarify that unfortunate turn of phrase? and now you repeat it again misinterpretting it? So can I take it you acknowledge that technology can improve the efficiency with which we use useful energy and your phrase :

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he faster we streamline our technology, the faster we speed up the transforming process, the faster available energy is dissipated.


was also just an unfortunate turn of phrase and what you really meant was that the 2nd law means that the application of technology can never result in the net creation of useful energy.
Last edited by nero on Mon 12 Dec 2005, 19:26:17, edited 1 time in total.
Biofuels: The "What else we got to burn?" answer to peak oil.
User avatar
nero
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Top

Re: <>

Unread postby bobcousins » Mon 12 Dec 2005, 18:51:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobcousins', ' ')If I get in my car and drive somewhere, where is the thermodynamic entropy decrease?


Everytime we use technology to reverse or halt entropy. A car will coast downhill, but it won't go uphill without an input of energy. Water doesn't flow uphill on it's own, it must be pumped.

But in doing so, an even greater increase in overall entropy occurs.


If I let my car coast downhill, I am converting potential energy to heat. To get uphill I convert chemical energy to heat. In both cases usable energy decreases, entropy increases. With entropy, you can't win, and you can't get a free lunch, remember?

Life is a biological machine. Both life and our machines ("technology") require a constant throughput of energy to produce useful results. A byproduct of the process is always an increase in entropy.

You know Monte, you seem to have all the facts, you just have trouble putting things together in the right way. I am somewhat amazed that with your knowledge of physics and biology you can't see the wood for the trees, but hey, no-one knows everything!
It's all downhill from here
User avatar
bobcousins
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1164
Joined: Thu 14 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Left the cult
Top

Re: <>

Unread postby Ludi » Mon 12 Dec 2005, 20:48:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobcousins', 'L')ife is a biological machine. Both life and our machines ("technology") require a constant throughput of energy to produce useful results. A byproduct of the process is always an increase in entropy


Doesn't this throughput hold entropy at bay in the local system (living creature/machine)?

Or are you saying there are no "local" effects of entropy?
Ludi
 
Top

Re: <>

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 12 Dec 2005, 21:16:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobcousins', 'I')f I let my car coast downhill, I am converting potential energy to heat. To get uphill I convert chemical energy to heat. In both cases usable energy decreases, entropy increases. With entropy, you can't win, and you can't get a free lunch, remember?

Life is a biological machine. Both life and our machines ("technology") require a constant throughput of energy to produce useful results. A byproduct of the process is always an increase in entropy.


I don't disagree with any of that. It is just what I said.

The difference being that one energy source is potential and the other is a fossil fuel.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou know Monte, you seem to have all the facts, you just have trouble putting things together in the right way. I am somewhat amazed that with your knowledge of physics and biology you can't see the wood for the trees, but hey, no-one knows everything!


I feel I have trouble explaining what I mean. :oops: Perhaps I have unintentionally blended together logical and thermal entropy in the discussion and it has grown so convoluted it no longer makes sense. :cry:

I do tire of the antagonism and condescension directed at me by many. Even if I am 100% wrong, I don't deserve the treatment.

Let's just drop it, ok?

Even if I am 100% right, it is not a good sales tool, agreed?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: <>

Unread postby Ludi » Mon 12 Dec 2005, 21:18:55

Oh thank goodness! I thought this would never end!
Ludi
 

Re: <>

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 12 Dec 2005, 21:33:26

I am going to split the "debate" from the explanation of the laws so as not to confuse those just learning of them.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: <>

Unread postby bobcousins » Tue 13 Dec 2005, 22:07:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobcousins', 'L')ife is a biological machine. Both life and our machines ("technology") require a constant throughput of energy to produce useful results. A byproduct of the process is always an increase in entropy


Doesn't this throughput hold entropy at bay in the local system (living creature/machine)?

Or are you saying there are no "local" effects of entropy?


I will attempt to address your points Ludi as you ask a fair question and deserve a decent response.

Thermal entropy is only reduced in a limited or temporary sense. You have to define the scope of the system in an arbitrary way to make it stick. In the fridge example, if you define the scope as the inside of the fridge, then entropy is reduced. Entropy is increased somewhere else - the immediate environment, or the kitchen. For practical purposes you have to consider a fridge as a device that requires energy and produces heat (entropy) as a byproduct.

Muscles work by converting ATP to ADP. The body creates a stock of ATP from energy derived in food. So at a narrow level entropy is being reduced. But at the practical level of the whole organism, it's a device that requres energy and increases thermal entropy (it dissipates usable energy as heat).

But the utility of fridges is not to reverse entropy, their "useful function" is to preserve food. The useful function of an organism is to create more DNA, it is not to stockpile energy in a usable form.

For all practical senses, all operations of life, machines, society create a net increase in thermal entropy. There is no sense in which a city say creates a local reduction in entropy, which will be reversed as soon as the power is turned off. In fact it is the opposite. A city increases entropy while powered.

If you consider the organisation of an organism or a city to represent a reduction in entropy, you can only be talking about logical entropy. Logical entropy is operating at a different level to thermal entropy. So while thermal entropy applies to all physical processes, and overall always increases, logical entropy can be decreasing. The nature of what the terms order and logical entropy even mean are not well understood. To get into a philosphical debate about these things will always lead to controversy, and anyway they are not directly important to Peak Oil or its implications.

So this is where I have my beef with Monte. By a careless blurring of the strict thermodynamic version of entropy with various other kinds of entropy, he makes statements which are simply not justified by physical laws, they make great soundbites but are effectively meaningless. We lose the core point and get sidetracked into blind alleys.

As I pointed out before, it is clear that complexity and organisation can arise and operate within the boundaries of the laws of thermodynamics. So considering entropy may be essential for mechanical engineers, but it really has nothing useful to say about the limits of complexity. About the only useful observation we can make at the macro level is that we need a sufficient amount of usable energy to power processes - both mechanical and biological.

So I find the phrase "holding entropy at bay" is confused, and confusing. It doesn't convey the essence of what is going on, and tries to describe it as a negative. While it is true the paint on my car slowly peels, I don't actually care about that. The useful function of my car is to get me from A to B. That may or may not reduce entropy, it doesn't matter, what matters is that it requires regular dollops of energy to perform it's useful function of transportation. (It is true maintenance also requires regular dollops of energy, but maintenance is secondary to the primary function).

That is why I prefer the formulation in its positive form "machines require a constant throughput of energy to produce useful results". You do not need to get into arcane details of entropy with a dubious justification, and it is clear that when the energy input stops flowing, the useful results stop too.

Hopefully some of that made sense, these things make perfect sense in my head but never seem to come out quite right. :wink:
It's all downhill from here
User avatar
bobcousins
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1164
Joined: Thu 14 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Left the cult
Top

Re: 2nd law Debate

Unread postby DoctorDoom » Thu 15 Dec 2005, 12:52:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')Any system which is free of external influences becomes more disordered with time. This disorder can be expressed in terms of the quantity called entropy.

In our post-peak world, we will not have the "external influences" required to reduce or reverse entropy and maintain our standard of living, much less our current population. Entropy Law tells us that a society's energy flow must be reduced to as low a point as possible in order to sustain the unfolding of all life as far into the future as possible. The entropy economy we are headed for is one of necessities, not luxuries.


We would still have the external energy of the sun. Although diffuse, we have technologies for harnessing that energy. Even if we didn't, we could maintain our standard of living for quite some time by continuing to increase the entropy of the Earth if we had another energy dense fuel to switch to after oil runs out. We do: uranium.
DoctorDoom
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun 20 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: California
Top

Re: 2nd law Debate

Unread postby Dezakin » Wed 21 Dec 2005, 16:58:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e would still have the external energy of the sun. Although diffuse, we have technologies for harnessing that energy. Even if we didn't, we could maintain our standard of living for quite some time by continuing to increase the entropy of the Earth if we had another energy dense fuel to switch to after oil runs out. We do: uranium.

Bah, entropy on earth doesnt increase. Entropy in closed systems increases, and the only closed system worth talking about is the universe. You allways have the sun, and more importantly the night sky as a heat sink.

Thermodynamic entropy is irrelevant to peak oil, peak uranium or even the sun going out. its only relevant when you're starting to get your last power sources in the universe close to the temperature of the cosmic background radiation.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron