Peter Atkins - Four Laws That Drive the Universe

[dopeasfuckk]

from the description i can tell 2007MTA never read the book.. second sentence doesn't even make sense. like a principle of thermodynamics my knowledge and enjoyment will start to increase?

[pinball281]

yeah i find this stuff very interesting but im more interested in who is the law giver?

[dopeasfuckk]

@pinball281 you beg the question by asking who.. and are creating a bigger problem to solve if you think complexity requires a more complex designer

[AxtoxthexJ]

yup who founded these laws who putted them in existence ?

[aluddite1]

<3 thermodynamics. especially sitzfleishing (sp?) over entropy. and his quote, 'if you don't know the second law... not properly educated' is 'true.' I'm just sayin'.

[optionsnone]

All elements are the same stuff in different densities. Energy is the motivation for mass to move, most often measured by the mass in motion.

[Twicebakedtaters]

@optionsnone Far too many unknowns and contradictory indicators to claim entropy as a fact.

[optionsnone]

@Twicebakedtaters I do not claim it as fact more feasible. They could be unachievable ends the points just out of the pendulums reach.

[Twicebakedtaters]

Wow, this guy is PREACHING thermodynamics.

"You really should be interested in themodynamics"

Why? I understand what I need to know about temperature.

No one knows what energy IS. I understand what it does for what I need it to do. That's all I need to know.

Entropy is a myth.

" no other law in science has contributed more to the liberation of the human spirit" ??

What kind of mumbo jumbo philosophy is that?

For a man of science who poo poo's philosophy...he sure preaches it enough.

[optionsnone]

@Twicebakedtaters In a cyclic universe entropy is inevitable, it is the start and end points of the expansive existence we call the universe, with a possible second type of entropy half way through. Condensed to equilibrium or expanded to equilibrium.

[Twicebakedtaters]

@optionsnone ( IF ) it is a cyclical universe, It is in equilibrium and there is no entropy.

Under current knowledge energy is never created or destroyed. It evolves in form.

You here scenario's that eventually all stars will die but then you hear that there are star nurseries. Obviously localized gravity reverses entropy. Then you have theoretical dark matter and energy, and the fact that space is not expanding but continually creating new space.....and it's not empty.

[cojonesdelperro]

@Twicebakedtaters Entropy a myth? Easily said, but it makes no more sense than asserting gravity is a myth. To get my degree in engineering I spent hours studying its variations in steam cycles which drive turbines in power stations. It is very real and exactly quantified. You could not even begin to design, build or run a thermal power station without it.

[Twicebakedtaters]

@cojonesdelperro Order is a myth. Things are transformed. Everything evolves. Gravity is something we can measure and predict. Entropy is a myth because things that break down are recycled. As energy is never created or destroyed, It simply changes form. It is in the process of change between recognized forms that the myth arises.

[cojonesdelperro]

@Twicebakedtaters Once a bowl of soup has cooled down, it will not heat up again spontaneously. That is fact, and the essence of the Second Law. Energy is conserved, but the transformation is irreversable and that energy CANNOT now be "recycled"; you need to transform some more energy to heat up the soup again. Entropy IS measurable (in joules per kilogram per kelvin) and predictable. Engineers use it every day. If entropy were a myth, balls would roll up hills by themselves. You ever see that?

[Twicebakedtaters]

@cojonesdelperro "Once a bowl of soup has cooled down"

The heat from the soup did not disappear. It moved on to be absorbed by other systems.

The transformation is reversible, by reheating, poor analogy. By conservation of energy, the energy is automatically recycled.  All that can be said is that energy manifests form , all structures/forms energy manifests are transient because they are in a constant state of change.

[cojonesdelperro]

@Twicebakedtaters Note I said it would not heat up again "spontaneously". Of course you can reheat, but to do that you need to convert more energy; you cannot re-use the heat which has already been dispersed or, as you say, absorbed by other systems (I did not say "disappeared"). That is an irreversable process, or where do you suppose the energy for the re-heat comes from?

[Twicebakedtaters]

@cojonesdelperro Who ever suggested spontaneity? and you don't convert more energy......just other energy.

You are thinking in terms of closed systems and in reality there is no such animal. All things interact constantly.

and in a constant state of change. THAT is the irreversible process.

[cojonesdelperro]

@Twicebakedtaters OK, call it "other energy" then (I won't argue over semantics), but it is not the same as the energy which has dispersed, and that is the point. Once it has dispersed, you don't get it back -- although I invite you to demonstrate how if you disagree. And you cannot just decree closed systems or entropy out of existence, you need to come up with a workable alternative which can, say, analyse a steam cycle just as well.

[Twicebakedtaters]

@cojonesdelperro Of course its not the same energy.

What do you mean once it is dispersed you don't get it back? Your thinking in finite terms. It goes on to affect countless things around it and does not cease to exist. That's like the myth that bodies are at rest. Nothing in the universe is at rest. With respect to relativity things in the same relative frame of reference in space time can appear at rest with respect to each other.

[cojonesdelperro]

@Twicebakedtaters For the nth time, "dispersed" is not the same thing as "ceased to exist". I am merely rephrasing the Clausius statement in plain language. If you think you can sidestep Clausius, then once again please tell me how you would do this, and with what you would replace the entropy column on steam tables. You seem unwilling to go beyond the First Law. BTW, no one has disputed "bodies at rest" for centuries. It's like saying the Earth isn't flat.

[Twicebakedtaters]

@cojonesdelperro As we can imagine infinitely hot and dense so may we imagine infinitely cold and disperse.

Therefore what is dense/hot and what is disperse/cold? Relativity does not just manifest itself in the perspective of the construct of space/time.

[scar504]

Peter Atkins is the greatest mind to grace our mother earth.

[upliftzippy]

He needs a medal and a reeeeally long hug.

[juanarruti]

penis

[optionsnone]

When related to the dissolution of the universe (expansion to entropy) :-

If there is no common denominator to everything, there is no such thing as entropy.

Science can't have entropy without God - common denominator that is everything. This is not a belief - it is a logical statement.

[Twicebakedtaters]

@optionsnone Science can have neither.

[marcusantonio91]

Does this man know how to crack a smile? At least with Dawkins it's like your grandad chatting to you

[Davotheledge]

I was just going to post the same thing lol

[Alexdurrant7]

@Theoneandonly5811 How can you be so sure that your experience wasn't a neurological phenomenon? I've had such experiences when taking certain drugs in the past - it goes to show that the brain is capable of generating feelings of a transcendant presence.

Also, I would be unable to change the laws that govern the ants, with the exception of removing the walls of the box. So the analogy complies with my claim that gods existence still wouldn't explain the creation of energy from nothing.

[Alexdurrant7]

@Theoneandonly5811 That's quite an impressive list of baseless assertions. Any solid evidence for any of them?

[Alexdurrant7]

@Theoneandonly5811 If energy can't be created or destroyed then how does introducing god to the picture help? Energy can't be created, remember?

[gprocopiou]

Loved 'Four Laws' and 'Galileo's Finger' too! And of course, Prof Atkins' 'Physical Chemistry' was the leading textbook when I did my undergraduate studies! Gonna seek out 'Creation Revisited' next - but having trouble finding it..