Why is this in the science section.
Entropy vs. Anti-Entropy (How DNA Defeats the Blackhole)
- Thread starter tonylang
- Start date
- Status
It isn't a point of view, it is an incorrect understanding of entropy.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
This line of thinking is a rational and reasonable extrapolation given that as far as our relationship to the concept of mathematics as being the language of nature goes, we are as earthworms are to the concept of farming. We may have a foot in the mud but it is folly to believe we’ve done more than scratch the surface. Before Newton having practically single handedly develop the Calculus there was no means of expressing dynamic aspects of nature mathematically, after he did… we could.
Further, if mathematics can describe some of nature then it does ultimately describe all of nature. Life is part of nature. To speak of an unrealized branch of mathematics that could effectively quantify and express (or model if you prefer) living structures is indeed reasonable. Also to take the further small leap to suggest that given the computational indications that in nature a bacterium, for example, may be to the software (natural complexity) of nature as an average star is to the hardware of nature may be strange at first, but not at all unreasonable. “If one cannot handle, ‘strange’ in today’s scientific climate then one should perhaps take up religion.”)
In other words if each cell(s) that has ever existed on Earth is indeed as fundamentally influential in nature as say, a star is, we begin to see how life, as opposed to non-life, may be a very potent factor to an aspect of nature science doesn't yet acknowledge.
The feasibility of a mathematical model for living things is something that could be disputed. Personally I think it is a wild goose chase. Speaking as a chemist, I am very conscious that we cannot even model exactly anything more complex than the hydrogen molecule ion (a system with two nuclei and one electron). All other mathematical models of even the simplest molecules have to resort to approximations. This is not because humanity is too ignorant as yet, there are theorems in mathematics that prove it is impossible to do exactly. The world of physics, in which we can apply mathematics to obtain exact results, is an artificially simplified one that has bred a kind of arrogance in some people. Mathematics is indispensable in chemistry, but has to content itself with being applied to models that are usually approximate and partial, i.e. only represent one aspect of behaviour. The same applies a fortiori in biology. The notion that ultimately we will have a mathematical model to explain everything is naive wishful thinking, in my view.
But supposing, for the sake of argument, one were able to model life mathematically, why do you say this would make us see that a cell is "fundamentally influential" in nature. What do you mean by that and what is the basis of your assertion?
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
This is the kind of fuzzy mixture of philosophy with science that fuels a debate over whether human beings and their activities can effect climate change. It can. Your concept of entropy divorced from the mathematics of thermodynamics is what's wrong. It is human DNA that isn't even a thermodynamic or entropy hiccup. Things more complex are everywhere, and in abundance.
In life an "anti-entropy" affect is created by the interaction of water with organics. If we mix oil and water and stir these with an agitator, we get an emulsion. The emulsion is a state of high system entropy. If we let this sit, it will begin to spontaneously separate back to pure water and pure oil; forms two separate layers. This is an example of an anti-entropy effect, to use your words. The randomness of the emulsion moves into order.
In life, the water and oil analogy is extrapolated to water and a wide range of organics. The various organelles within cells are analogous to separate phases that separate precipitate out. A cell is like a living phase diagram. The reason this occurs is water forms strong hydrogen bonds with itself to form stable structures. These are so energetically favorable, when organics are present, they upset the energy balance. The system will find way to minimize the energy even if this means order out of chaos.
A useful equation is the Gibbs Free Energy Equation G; G=H-TS, where H is enthalpy (internal energy), T is temperature and S is entropy. If we solve for entropy S, we get S=(G - H)/T. Depending on the value of G and H, S can be plus or minus, which you call entropy and anti-entropy. In the case of the emulsion of water and oil, H is very strong and causes the S to become minus, allowing order out of the chaos of the emulsion.
Nope. You are once again showing that you do not understand the concept of entropy. There is no such thing as anti-entropy. In an open system such as a living organism, entropy can increase or it can decrease but the idea of anti-entropy is just ignorant.
That is absurd. Life uses energy to build organization. Try cutting off the energy (stop eating) and lets see how this energy balance crap of your works. Life in a closed system will increase in entropy like everything else!
Just more crap.
It seems to me that the equation G=H-TS could be rearanged to S=(H-G)/T, not what you came up with.
That won't really tell you anything anyway the important thing is the CHANGE in Gibbs Free Energy $$\Delta G$$. You should find a Chemical Engineer to help you with these concepts so you can stop making the same mistakes over and over.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I had a go at this in post 19.
As far as anti-entropy goes, Tonylang references what seems to me a very poor paper that actually does attempt to define this. But having read it, I'm really none the wiser and it does not look as if their idea has been followed up.
Not sure if you gave up here or not so maybe this is wasted, but I'll give it a go.
It is quite easy to demonstrate that the proposition "DNA violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics" is false.
Consider the chemical reaction which adds one nucleoside to a DNA strand being replicated prior to completion of mitosis.
If that reaction "reversed entropy" then it would never happen.
As it turns out, the free nucleotide carries its own triphosphate "energy supply" and thus the reaction which hydolyzes the phosphates and bonds the nucleoside to the chain is favored. That is, all constituents fall to a lower energy state after all.
Add the net energy by summing over each reaction in the sequence and it will amount to a cumulative loss.
Hence the proposition is false and incorrect.
http://m.sparknotes.com/biology/molecular/dnareplicationandrepair/section2.rhtml
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Aq Id, I don't think he's saying living things violate the 2nd law, or not in so many words.
I think he is, or was, implying that the entropy reduction inside living organisms somehow balances [cue "woo-woo" sound effects] the entropy increase elsewhere in the cosmos. So in effect, I think he's arguing for a cosmos in which entropy is, cumulatively, conserved.
Of course this does violate the 2nd Law, since the 2nd Law effectively says entropy increases as time goes on. But this doesn't seem to me to be the usual creationist crap about evolution being impossible because it violates the 2nd Law of TD. It's more a sort of yin-yang, evelything is in barance, glasshopper, kind of woo.
Yeah I was completely ignoring the nuttier larger picture here. But it looks like he bailed out anyway. Maybe the idea didn't seem as plausible after the effects of the bong wore off.
We seem continually blessed with these larger than life nuts!
I wouldn't call them nuts pad
Just a different way of thinking , which I would encourage
Nothing wrong with thinking differently, as long as one accepts the fact that he or she just possibly maybe wrong.
But some are certainly nuts!
Possibly maybe wrong , great , now we are getting somewhere
Keep it up. You may yet see the light.
Well I thought you might see
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Yes, the universe certainly does have order in it, or we would not have been able to formulate successfully the "laws" and models of science that we have today.
I think Sideshowbob put his (or her?) finger on it best when pointing out, earlier in this thread, that the tendency for entropy to increase is not really about a tendency for matter to becomes disorganised, it is about the tendency of energy to dissipate. There is far too much easy use of "entropy" as a catch all synonym for "chaos" of all sorts. Whereas it is, in fact, a precisely defined thermodynamic quantity.
- Status