Nitram and Entropy

[kojikun]

Nitram Tahalshia (4:44:50 PM): My god. You think entropy can be reversed.
PsygnisFive (4:44:55 PM): Locally it can.
Nitram Tahalshia (4:45:05 PM): No, it can't. Ash can't turn back into tree.
PsygnisFive (4:45:14 PM): Let's ask the forum then shall we?
Nitram Tahalshia (4:45:17 PM): Second fucking law of thermodynamics, you moron.
Nitram Tahalshia (4:45:25 PM): Appeal to popularity.
PsygnisFive (4:45:42 PM): I was thinking more towards asking the engineers and scientists.
PsygnisFive (4:46:00 PM): You seem to forget that the second law of thermodynamics refers only to closed systems
PsygnisFive (4:46:13 PM): i specifically said that in open systems entropy can indeed be reversed.
Nitram Tahalshia (4:46:30 PM): That would require a process of efficiency exceeding 100%.

[SirNitram]

Wow, if you can't win an argument by illogic, fallacies, and ignoring the opposition, go for an appeal to popularity.

The context, of course, would be useful. Kojikun is currently arguing that we can rely on the sun to replenish the nutrients in soil as we farm it, because the sun makes Earth, not a closed system. He is ignoring observation of the spread of deserts, but doesn't care.

[kojikun]

Wow, if you can't win an argument by illogic, fallacies, and ignoring the opposition, go for an appeal to popularity.

The context, of course, would be useful. Kojikun is currently arguing that we can rely on the sun to replenish the nutrients in soil as we farm it, because the sun makes Earth, not a closed system. He is ignoring observation of the spread of deserts, but doesn't care.

Deserts spread because of loss of plant life. An example would be what caused the dust bowl. Ofcourse, crop rotation now prevents such things from happening, allowing soil to replenish it's nutrients and rendering your argument invalid.

[SirNitram]

Wow, if you can't win an argument by illogic, fallacies, and ignoring the opposition, go for an appeal to popularity.

The context, of course, would be useful. Kojikun is currently arguing that we can rely on the sun to replenish the nutrients in soil as we farm it, because the sun makes Earth, not a closed system. He is ignoring observation of the spread of deserts, but doesn't care.

Deserts spread because of loss of plant life. An example would be what caused the dust bowl. Ofcourse, crop rotation now prevents such things from happening, allowing soil to replenish it's nutrients and rendering your argument invalid.

Yes, you don't understand the law of diminishing returns, we established that. I have no interest in hearing your ignorance over two channels.

[Xisiqomelir]

SirNitram is correct.

1) Entropy is irreversible.

2) The universe is a closed system

[Frank Hipper]

Wow, if you can't win an argument by illogic, fallacies, and ignoring the opposition, go for an appeal to popularity.

The context, of course, would be useful. Kojikun is currently arguing that we can rely on the sun to replenish the nutrients in soil as we farm it, because the sun makes Earth, not a closed system. He is ignoring observation of the spread of deserts, but doesn't care.

Deserts spread because of loss of plant life. An example would be what caused the dust bowl. Ofcourse, crop rotation now prevents such things from happening, allowing soil to replenish it's nutrients and rendering your argument invalid.

One process of desertification doesn't explain them all, koji. The Sahara's growth is due more to lowering water tables than human action.

[RedImperator]

You can't reverse entropy. The best you can do is move it around so as to create a localized spot of order. Is this a correct interpretation?

[kojikun]

SirNitram is correct.

1) Entropy is irreversible.

2) The universe is a closed system

But I was speaking about an open system, not a closed system, which was clearly stated. So Nitram is wrong. In a whole closed system, no, entropy always increases, but in an open system entropy can decrease because its increasing faster somewhere else leaving the whole with more entropy, but local spots with less, and infact decreasing entropy.

One process of desertification doesn't explain them all, koji. The Sahara's growth is due more to lowering water tables than human action.

True, but we were talking about farming and the loss of arable land due to using that land and extracting all nutrients from it; not climatology.

[SyntaxVorlon]

Is it that rates of entropy can change in open systems, or that the actual entropy can change?

[kojikun]

Is it that rates of entropy can change in open systems, or that the actual entropy can change?

The amount of entropy. In a closed system entropy increases. But in an open system with energy input, like the earth or a pot on the stove, entropy can decrease, because somewhere else it's increasing even more.

[Gil Hamilton]

As much as it pains me to ever agree with him, Nitram is right. The sun doesn't replenish the nutrients in the soil. It provides energy for the stuff farmers add to the soil to put nutrients back in it, like fertilizer and fresh top soil from elsewhere, but the sun doesn't do it itself. Thus we get what he's talking about with diminishing returns. Every cycle, the amount of nutrients available gets less overall, because during the previous cycle, nutrients get expended and turned into bones, muscles, mechanical energy, waste heat, et cetera, thus what you get back (manure) lost that many nutrients. Nutrients can be transplanted from elsewhere or culled from animal poo, but diminishing returns is in full swing. Eventually, all those nutrients are going to be turned into mechanical energy and waste heat, lost, and entropy wins. The sun merely providing the energy won't change that.

[Darth Wong]

As much as it pains me to ever agree with him, Nitram is right. The sun doesn't replenish the nutrients in the soil. It provides energy for the stuff farmers add to the soil to put nutrients back in it, like fertilizer and fresh top soil from elsewhere, but the sun doesn't do it itself. Thus we get what he's talking about with diminishing returns. Every cycle, the amount of nutrients available gets less overall, because during the previous cycle, nutrients get expended and turned into bones, muscles, mechanical energy, waste heat, et cetera, thus what you get back (manure) lost that many nutrients. Nutrients can be transplanted from elsewhere or culled from animal poo, but diminishing returns is in full swing.

You appear to have ignored the fact that this entire biosystem came from a dead world. You can take combinations of chemicals, hit them with energy, initiate chemical reactions, and produce biomatter. The notion that biosystems are necessarily diminishing systems is simply wrong.

Eventually, all those nutrients are going to be turned into mechanical energy and waste heat, lost, and entropy wins. The sun merely providing the energy won't change that.

The Earth is an open system, and it dumps entropy to its environment. And in case you hadn't figured it out, there is actually more entropy in a living forest than there is in a lifeless desert.

[Gil Hamilton]

You appear to have ignored the fact that this entire biosystem came from a dead world. You can take combinations of chemicals, hit them with energy, initiate chemical reactions, and produce biomatter. The notion that biosystems are necessarily diminishing systems is simply wrong.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if you take an overused field, one that's been farmed too much, the sun beating down on it won't make the nutrients come back but it's lonesome. Life might migrate elsewhere and help the process, or the farmer who works the field will bring in fertilizer, but that field is just parched earth on sunlight alone. That's why fresh nutrients have to be brought in from elsewhere, and is subject to decreasing returns because many of the nutrients from the previous cycle will be turned into unusable waste. You can slow the process by recycling that waste, but you'll never get the same amount of nutrients back as you had before, because of inefficencies of the process. I suppose after a half billion years of sunlight and the right chemical slurry finding its way onto the field, some sort of biomatter of some sort will appear eventually, but that isn't exactly a practical timeframe for us.

The Earth is an open system, and it dumps entropy to its environment. And in case you hadn't figured it out, there is actually more entropy in a living forest than there is in a lifeless desert.

Naturally, but I'm not arguing that. What I'm arguing is the amount of usable nutrients by us is subject to diminishing returns in a reasonable timeframe.

[Darth Wong]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if you take an overused field, one that's been farmed too much, the sun beating down on it won't make the nutrients come back but it's lonesome.

That's a microscopic analysis of a macroscopic problem.

I suppose after a half billion years of sunlight and the right chemical slurry finding its way onto the field, some sort of biomatter of some sort will appear eventually, but that isn't exactly a practical timeframe for us.

Good thing the biosystem did not develop as slowly as your projections indicate, or we would not exist.

Naturally, but I'm not arguing that. What I'm arguing is the amount of usable nutrients by us is subject to diminishing returns in a reasonable timeframe.

By using a microscopic example based on a single field, rather than looking at the larger picture. The biosystem continually generates more biomass, but if we use the parts we want too quickly, we generate the appearance that it is a run-down system.

As for the original topic of the thread, it's an obvious communications problem. Nitram is saying that you cannot reverse entropy regardless of whether you're dealing with a closed system or an open system, which is true. The whole concept of entropy is to provide a time vector for irreversible processes. However, Kojikun was simply phrasing his argumnt incorrectly; he was obviously trying to say that you can lower the amount of entropy in an open system (which is also true), but he phrased it wrong.

[Gil Hamilton]

That's a microscopic analysis of a macroscopic problem.

I thought we were talking about a field, since that's what kojikun was talking about when he mentioned crop rotation and the sun replenishing nutrients in that field.

Good thing the biosystem did not develop as slowly as your projections indicate, or we would not exist.

But it happened about as I said. A half billion years of solar radiation and the right chemical slurry produced the first self-replicating molecules. That doesn't help a farmer who has an overfarmed field, because he doesn't have half a billion years to wait for the sun to make self-replicating molecules and another billion for them to evolve into nutrient producing microbes.

By using a microscopic example based on a single field, rather than looking at the larger picture. The biosystem continually generates more biomass, but if we use the parts we want too quickly, we generate the appearance that it is a run-down system.

Firstly, I think we are having a communications breakdown here ourselves.

Secondly, the biosystem generates more bio-mass all the time, but at the expense of the usable nutrients available to it. Nutrients can be brought in from elsewhere to feed the growth or waste recycled by microbes back into something useful (like compost) or coughed up by the mineral rich ash from volcanoes, all energy provide for in normal circumstances by the sun, but the biosystem isn't generating new nutrients, just recycling old ones. Because no system can be 100% efficent, it's not getting back as many nutrients as it put in. Any net growth in the biosystem is due to the fact that not all potential nutrients available have been tapped and have entered the system, so it's gaining more due to voracious appetite for more nutrients than it loses due to inefficency (like a leaking cup that is having more water poured into it). Eventually, of course, it has to reach a point where it's consumed everything that can possible be converted to a nutrient, and the cycle will wind down.

[Darth Wong]

But it happened about as I said. A half billion years of solar radiation and the right chemical slurry produced the first self-replicating molecules. That doesn't help a farmer who has an overfarmed field, because he doesn't have half a billion years to wait for the sun to make self-replicating molecules and another billion for them to evolve into nutrient producing microbes.

You've got to be joking. An overfarmed field is completely devoid of all organic matter?

Secondly, the biosystem generates more bio-mass all the time, but at the expense of the usable nutrients available to it. Nutrients can be brought in from elsewhere to feed the growth or waste recycled by microbes back into something useful (like compost) or coughed up by the mineral rich ash from volcanoes, all energy provide for in normal circumstances by the sun, but the biosystem isn't generating new nutrients, just recycling old ones. Because no system can be 100% efficent, it's not getting back as many nutrients as it put in.

These "nutrients" are just combinations of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc. These elements are not being depleted; just reorganized.

Any net growth in the biosystem is due to the fact that not all potential nutrients available have been tapped and have entered the system, so it's gaining more due to voracious appetite for more nutrients than it loses due to inefficency (like a leaking cup that is having more water poured into it). Eventually, of course, it has to reach a point where it's consumed everything that can possible be converted to a nutrient, and the cycle will wind down.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with entropy.

In any case, the process of "consumption" merely involves taking the chemicals involved and reacting them in some way. Nothing is actually destroyed or irreversibly altered; these reactions are not thermodynamically reversible, but that does not mean they are not chemically reversible. All you need is some kind of catalyzed or energized reaction. To portray this as a limitation of physics is simply wrong.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Koji giving Colin migraines is not nice.

Thermodynamics second law still holds.

and as much as newly married couples try, the second law of physics still holds, they are merely displaceing matter, not co-habitating it.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Order from entropy occurs in only via two things, life and gravity. And that doesn't mean it can be reversed.

[The Yosemite Bear]

right, I get old, I die, I can get someone preggers, but that does not mean that I continue, that just means that some of my damaged gentic code is passed down, and doesn't end with me (thus order), however there is no "Turning back the clock"

[SirNitram]

SirNitram is correct.

1) Entropy is irreversible.

2) The universe is a closed system

But I was speaking about an open system, not a closed system, which was clearly stated. So Nitram is wrong. In a whole closed system, no, entropy always increases, but in an open system entropy can decrease because its increasing faster somewhere else leaving the whole with more entropy, but local spots with less, and infact decreasing entropy.

Please, prove that entropy can be reversed on any scale. It can be slowed, this is obvious. Crop rotation, which you so desperately want to be a cure all, can slow the loss of nutrients from farmland. But it does not mean that that land can support an infinite number of seasons.

Allow me to explain a bit for the folks who are just joining in. Kojikun is another of those who refuse to believe that automation will not automagically cause everything to become free after some threshold. In amongst his rantings where he proves he doesn't understand the relation between cost and value, and microscopic and macroscopic, I pointed out in plain English that value, thus cost, will remain simply because there are limited resources. If you just declared them free anyone, you get a massive economic crash when you run out. Kojikun simply refuses to believe you can run out of food if you make it free to 6+billion people.

[LadyTevar]

Wow, if you can't win an argument by illogic, fallacies, and ignoring the opposition, go for an appeal to popularity.

The context, of course, would be useful. Kojikun is currently arguing that we can rely on the sun to replenish the nutrients in soil as we farm it, because the sun makes Earth, not a closed system. He is ignoring observation of the spread of deserts, but doesn't care.

Deserts spread because of loss of plant life. An example would be what caused the dust bowl. Ofcourse, crop rotation now prevents such things from happening, allowing soil to replenish it's nutrients and rendering your argument invalid.

One process of desertification doesn't explain them all, koji. The Sahara's growth is due more to lowering water tables than human action.

I had read once that overgrazing in the more arable areas was also leading to the Sahara's expansion. The explaination was first cattle would eat away the plants, and then goats would eat whatever was left, leaving the area unable to reseed and becoming barren. Then, with the lose of groundcover, there is little for the night-time dew to form upon, thus losing that source of water.

[kojikun]

Please, prove that entropy can be reversed on any scale. It can be slowed, this is obvious. Crop rotation, which you so desperately want to be a cure all, can slow the loss of nutrients from farmland. But it does not mean that that land can support an infinite number of seasons.

Scale is irrelevant. Open and closed systems are whats relevant.

Allow me to explain a bit for the folks who are just joining in. Kojikun is another of those who refuse to believe that automation will not automagically cause everything to become free after some threshold. In amongst his rantings where he proves he doesn't understand the relation between cost and value, and microscopic and macroscopic, I pointed out in plain English that value, thus cost, will remain simply because there are limited resources. If you just declared them free anyone, you get a massive economic crash when you run out. Kojikun simply refuses to believe you can run out of food if you make it free to 6+billion people.

Irrelevant to the point of this discussion. Also a complete misinterpretation of what I asked you. Not that you explained anything at all, considering how every time I asked you something you either said you already answered it (even when I was asking for the first time) or said something completely unrelated to what I asked.

[Pu-239]

Koji is right, I think. The maintenance of "order" on earth is obtained at the cost of entropy in the sun (which happens to be irreversible without an external source of energy to reverse fusion, larger than the sun, which would just be entropy of it's own, needing another source ad infinatum), and earth itself is an open system.

Well, the ash and tree analogy isn't complete, since the CO2 and water from burning the tree can be recycled, and the ash could be fertilizer, provided alkalinity is dealt with????

[Thinkmarble]

The entropy of an closed system can only stay the same or increase with time, the entropy of an open system can be decreased if the entropy of enviroment of the open system is increased by the same or an larger amount.
Examples of open systems where entropy is decreased are living cells or refrigerators.

[Raxmei]

No steps of metabolism involve the destruction of atoms. The only ways you could possibly run out of nutrients are by blasting them all into space or burying them. The first option isn't likely to happen and the second is only a temporary solution.

As for entropy, yes it can be locally reduced. Mike says something on a related topic on his Creationism page. It's a few sections down from the top. Here's the most relevent part.

Actually, the entropy of a living organism can decrease, because a living organism is not a closed system. Since it is an open system, entropy can leave and enter. Entropy doesn't have to be destroyed- just moved. The concept of the closed system vs the open system is one of the most basic concepts that we teach kids in high school, and if someone thinks a living organism is a closed system, he must be staggeringly ignorant. Food, water, and energy enter and leave your body all the time, thus making it an open system. Furthermore, an entire species is even less of a closed system than an individual life form, and evolution occurs from one generation to the next, not in a single organism as it ages.

Just to be sure we're all on the same page here, can everyone involved define entropy in their own words?