Entropy vs. Anti-Entropy (How DNA Defeats the Blackhole)

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is true that each individual, both religious and scientifically minded, has since time in memoriam been free to accept any version of the living scenario one chooses, but as with all things in nature this choice has always been a false and imaginary one. Nature operates as it does and it is up to us to seek and comprehend the reality of it. I appreciate that many believe they already have all the answers, both from a scientific perspective as well as from a religious viewpoint but the jury is certainly still out on the matter. To pretend otherwise is being ideological.

The following summarizes a scientifically and naturally plausible hypothesis that at least approaches the likely reality that implements life in this universe;

Axiom: A proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follows from it.

Axiomatic null hypothesis (H0): Each individual experience of life is an instance of life implemented in nature and defined by a naturally recurring process.

The Instantiation Of Life By Natural Entanglement:

• Instantiation of the individual: The establishment of your Life.
• Your Position-Of-View (POV): That component of your being which resides in this universe.
• The Metaverse: The only real verse, and that from which the universe emerges.
• Your LifeID: That component of your being which resides outside of this universe, in the metaverse.
• The Quantum Entanglement Spectrum (QE): The Life Spectrum.
• Your Quantum Entanglement Frequency (QEF): The real and only immutable, you.
• The Cell: A biological QE circuit, the critical component in instantiating all life as we know it.
• The Entanglement Cells; Cells responsible for heterodyning the QEF in complex hosts and establishing the LifeID.
• Metamatter: An undiscovered but very real form of matter critical in instantiating and in the evolution of all life. Think dark matter without gravity.
• Entanglement Molecules; Molecules in every living cell which establish the QE connection with metamatter to create all life.

The hypothesis in summary: The most fundamental element of life is a molecule called, if you will, the Entanglement Molecule (EM). This molecule has the unique property of naturally establishing a quantum entanglement connection to a form of matter called metamatter, life-matter if you will. Think dark matter but expressing quantum entanglement (the life-force) in place of the force of gravitation. Metamatter like other natural entities exists outside of our space-time and is not subject to locality or relativistic constraints. Together these entanglement molecules and metamatter are the two endpoints of each isolated, naturally occurring quantum entanglement connection contained within every living cell that has ever existed. An entanglement molecule once arranged from its constituent atoms, not unlike the ferrite magnet in a transistor radio, is instantly sensitive to available, uninstantiated quantum entanglement frequencies (QEF) upon which to entangle available metamatter.


Such isolated pairings existed on Earth for eons, and in this universe, for even longer before the naturally occurring circumstances arose on Earth and perhaps elsewhere, to provide a ring of molecules that could be described as an early cell wall. Not all entanglement molecules were likely to encounter a cell wall but those that did, enclosed by this barrier, obtained the benefit of an extra level of protection that allowed them to develop beyond the typical. This basic entanglement relationship is the most fundamental manifestation of life. It establishes the position-of-view (POV to be discussed in this volume). Over time other types of molecules joined with these proto-cells sometimes to their mutual benefit sometimes not. Those that added no benefit or diminished the proto-cells survival prospects would not survive. The entanglement connection gave surviving proto-cells something very special. It gave the otherwise inanimate molecular components on the inside of this early cell a form of intra-cellular communication. That is, the ability to interact at a distance, but more critically at that point, the quantum entanglement connection gave the proto-cell the capacity to share or imprint internal cellular state information into its entangled metamatter. Metamatter because of its extra dimensional, non-locality and non-relativistic nature acts as a kind of cloud-storage accessible instantaneously from any location in this universe and in any other as well.


This universal cloud storage is the critical factor required to get evolution started and is what makes being possible anywhere in this universe. At that point evolution existed only via random environmental contact or interactions between proto-cells and other structures in the primordial environment of early Earth. Thus, the cell became nature’s biological entanglement circuit. Each such entanglement pairing constitutes an instantiation of life whether on Earth, in this universe, or anywhere in existence. Life could now be hosted by any viable formation of cell(s) that may emerge anywhere in existence. Ones instantiation is established at one specific quantum entanglement frequency (QEF), a narrow frequency band in the infinity of possibilities on the quantum entanglement spectrum. A quantum entanglement frequency that is unique in all existence to each life and to no other, but only while that QE connection persists. This yet to be determined property, perhaps frequency, on the quantum entanglement spectrum is the singular property in nature that defines each individual being. All other components of the instantiation process may change or be exchanged but it is the QEF that positions you as the central and only target of your instantiation, of your life, and not someone else’s. Change or retune ones QEF enough and you change the being, the individual. You are your quantum entanglement frequency. You are not your cells or your metamatter.


It is very likely that the QE spectrum predated even the big bang. Your QEF is the immutable, the indestructible you. When cells on any given planet around any given star anywhere in existence entangles metamatter at your QEF that is where you will instantiate. That is where you will be, a place like that is where you are right now. A place like that is where you are likely to have been many times before your current instantiation. Places like that are where you will inevitably reinstantiate many more times in your future. This is instantiation, this is life. You and I, and your pet otter, every insect, every cell and every organization of cells all life anywhere in existence instantiates by this mechanism. While each cell entangles at a unique QEF a few specialized cells in complex organisms called entanglement cells (EC) are able to heterodyne or combine their QEF to establish and entangle at a different unique QEF thus instantiating the emerged individual, you.


The composite quantum entanglement frequency together with the metamatter it entangles is called the lifeID. No memories or behavior of the host body is carried or transferred by the lifeID. In nature such properties are electromagnetic manifestations of the host species or vessel only. The closest cultural meme to the lifeID come via religions throughout human history having referred to this, using one word or another, as the soul. Once any quantum entanglement connection is terminated, by sufficiently disrupting the cellular component (inducing death of the host vessel), the previously entangled metamatter becomes available for entanglement by other cells. However this particular metamatter has been imprinted to some extent by its previous entanglement. Each generation of entanglement, each instantiation, each life, imprints information, from both the cell and QEF, to its entangled metamatter. The degree of this imprinting is yet to be determined. This time dependant, perishable imprinting of cellular state in metamatter becomes available to future cells that entangle this metamatter while simultaneously limiting its entanglement opportunities to cells of matching state. The passage of time decays the imprint left on metamatter causing a return to a state best described as stem-metamatter (to be discussed later in this volume). This transfer of cellular state information may impact cellular behavior and/or development and to the extent that this imprinted information manifests an advantage for the cell, may provide a survival benefit. This is the evolutionary mechanism used by early life that predated the development of the DNA/RNA molecules. With QE communication the proto-cell became the laboratory of evolutionary innovation we see today from which emerged a great many useful cellular structures and processes, but most pivotally, a clear benefit to augment the cloud storage mechanism of metamatter with a more local, more expandable and flexible information storage mechanism which became RNA and eventually DNA. This was the birth of the modern living cell. Much is yet to be learned but the implications of this process are vast and pervasive.
 
This is just getting goofier and goofier IMO. Reported as non-science. This should be in the philosophy section or alternative section.
 
The mechanism for life and the direction of evolution is connected to a reversible entropy system. As an example; water and oil do not mix, but will separate into two layers. If we agitate water and oil, by adding energy, we can form a higher entropy state called an emulsion. This high entropy state of water and oil is stable, but only if we maintain a constant energy input; the agitator has to stay on. If we remove the energy input, by stopping the agitator, then the entropy will go down and the water and oil will separate back into two layers.

Entropy is a state function, with a specific average value for any given state. In the water and oil system, the added agitation/energy can shift the state (defines a new state) that has a higher average entropy. By tweaking the energy, we can tweak the state of water and oil and thereby dial in the entropy connected to each state.

The more general system for life is water and organics. These will set base potentials. These allow a wide range of composite states that can shift between higher energy/entropy and lower energy/entropy. Evolution is a zig zag path in the direction of the lowest potential with water.

DNA is the most hydrated molecule within life, meaning it has the most chemically bonded water. This water is on there and will not come off under a centrfuge. If forms a double helix of water to parallel the DNA double helix. The DNA is the closest to being one with the water, which was always the goal.

This almost oneness, allows DNA and water to communicate via the hydrogen bonding binary found in both the bulk water and the water on the DNA. Hydrogen bonding cans shift between an ionic and covalent state, thereby physically defining the local structure of the water to reflect the state of the binary switch.

The water is in contact with everything in the cell, and can tweak local entropy of organic systems, at any scale. Enzymes can flex between states for reactions. The global average of the water is forwarded to the DNA, to alter the state entropy of the DNA/water composite. This will reflect the average combination of lower entropy packing and higher entropy RNA synthesis; the state of the DNA and water emulsion induced by the global agitator.
 
wellwisher said:
The more general system for life is water and organics. These will set base potentials. These allow a wide range of composite states that can shift between higher energy/entropy and lower energy/entropy. Evolution is a zig zag path in the direction of the lowest potential with water.
Click to expand...
Nope that is not what is driving evolution. Evolution is simply the animals and plants that are best adapted to the environment survive. There are random changes that occur in the genome and if these changes help the adaptability of the organism then the change will be passed on. Clearly the changes will not violate physics but that is rather obvious, no?
 
First of all, I must say something against some of the anti "anti-entropy" arguments.
That doesn't mean that I think the anti-entropists are right, but that some of the arguments used against them are wrong.
It does not matter what the final state of entropy is.
Entropy cannot see into the future, and it can't see what is happening at a distance.
Entropy acts on a purely local level.

If a reaction decreases the sum of available useful energy, then it is likely to occur.
That may involve an increase in complexity.
For example, a saturated solution of a salt, with great potential energy, but almost chaotic,
may form a very organised crystal, but with lower potential energy.

If the proponents of anti-entropy can prove that, at any stage, no matter what the final stage, a system becomes more complex without an immediate net loss of usable energy, then I will accept that such a thing exists.
 
Last edited:
Entropy will always be increased by any action.
The net amount cannot be lowered, even as a step towards a greater increase in entropy.
 
Captain Kremmen said:
Nobody disagrees?
Good.
Click to expand...

Well, if I was being pedantic I think I would say that, as I recall my thermodynamics, a non-spontaneous, reversible process can proceed with zero change in entropy (Carnot cycle, dQrev, and all that) But certainly all spontaneous processes proceed with net increase in entropy.
 
Captain Kremmen said:
Entropy will always be increased by any action.
The net amount cannot be lowered, even as a step towards a greater increase in entropy.
Click to expand...
The only caveat is that this is true for a closed system. In a steam turbine cycle for instance you have the entropy of the steam decrease and increase in different parts of the cycle. If you look at greater system (include the energy input and the heat sink) then the entropy always increases overall.

Or the short answer: yes, I agree with your statement.
 
The water and oil system is a special case of entropy. We can put an freshly formed emulsion of water and oil, into a closed container; closed system, and it will still separate into two layers; lowers entropy. Entropy is a state function with the emulsion state of water and oil, not a stable state. It starts with way too much entropy. The emulsion only existed because we added continuous energy via agitation. This is possible in an open system. But in a closed system, where we can't add external energy, the energy will come out of the overly high system entropy.

Most discussions of closed system and entropy concerned machines and efficiency. Machine efficiency tries to zero out the entropy of the system, but it can never be 100% successful. Life approaches entropy the other way and forms states of excessive entropy, so it can reverse into order; emulsion into two layers.

Entropy will always increase, unless you begin with entropy beyond its natural equilibrium, like in an emulsion. Too much chaos can cause order to appear. That is life.
 
wellwisher said:
The water and oil system is a special case of entropy.
Click to expand...
No it is a normal case of entropy. The entropy of separated oil and water is higher than the entropy of a container of oil and water that is shook up. That is why the oil and water separate.
When oil and water are shaken up the dropplets of oil will cause the water molecules to take on a highly ordered arrangement of hydrogen bonds, forming a sort of cage around the hydrophobic oil dropplet. The surface of the oil dropplet is the driver of the water molecules ordered arrangement. So, smaller oil dropplets have a larger surface area per volume than larger oil dropplets. This all means that it is energetically favorable for small oil dropplets to coalesce into larger dropplets with a corresponding increase in entropy. That is, 2 small oil dropplets have more order than 1 oil dropplet of the same mass as the 2 small dropplets. The most energetically favorable situation is a minimized surface area between the oil and water which means a layered arrangement of the oil and water. Since this is the lowest level of the order in the water molecules this means it is the highest entropy state.
 
Implications of the Instantiation Hypothesis;

By this mechanism individual and cellular genesis becomes planet and location as well as form independent, biological or non-biological.
The degree to which the theorized metamatter imprints on its host cell and unique QEF will determine after deinstantiation (death) the likelihood that your imprinted metamatter will, for a time, reject entanglement opportunities from dissimilar host cells (of even your same or similar species) in favor of entanglement with cells that contain your familial DNA which are more compatible with its imprinting, thereby increasing the probability of reinstantiating you in your former family line or if less finely imprinted, to any random line in your previous species, or if less finely tuned still, to another species entirely. Also when we discover the entanglement molecule in nature and in the cell, just as we eventually discovered the DNA molecule in the cell decades after Darwin presented his theory of evolution by natural selection, likewise this may allow us to develop technologies capable of detecting and tracking each individuals unique QEF in this life or across multiple instantiations. This alone will change the world, at the very least it will change the way we write our wills. Also for the first time in human history we could begin to take practical actions in life that would affect our reinstantiation prospects into our next life, thereby tailoring your next instantiation ahead of time, minus the mysticism and ideology.


Testable Element(s) of the Hypothesis:

One initial approach would be to seek evidence for, or against some fundamental aspect of the working hypothesis: Test for the existence, or lack thereof, of the proposed entanglement cells (EC) that establish and maintain life via the QE connection in complex hosts: Termination of the host's EC's and no other cells, should result in the termination of the subject.

Premise: Can death be induced without damage? Can an otherwise healthy living subject be terminated with empirically no physical damage contributable to the subject’s termination, Barring any limitations of technical proficiency or of equipment in analyzing and identifying the root cause of the subject’s death.

Axiom: There exists some absolute minimum numberof cells that may be terminated in any complex organism whereby such cells may be scientifically established to be the root and only cause of death of the subject organism with no pre-mortem adverse effects to other cells in the subject. Cells that meet these criteria are candidates for the theorized entanglement cells and the collection has a high probability of including some or all of the subject’s proposed entanglement cells.

Practical Test: Perform controlled experiments using approved subjects, i.e. fruit flies, to terminate the minimal number of cells per specimen to conclusively induce death of the test subject. Carefully repeat and document the number and location of target cells per subject for each scientifically substantiated successful sample. Repeatability per species is mandatory as the specifics may vary from species to species or subject to subject. In qualifying samples the cells that are the root cause of death must be gradually minimized and physically isolated. Cellular damage must be limited to only the target cells for a duration beginning at the time of the target cells death up to and including the time of confirmed subject death. In other words, for a successful trial no cells in the subject other than the target cells may be adversely physically affected pre-mortem.
 
Last edited:
tonylang said:
Implications of the Instantiation Hypothesis;

By this mechanism individual and cellular genesis becomes planet and location as well as form independent, biological or non-biological.
The degree to which the theorized metamatter imprints on its host cell and unique QEF will determine after deinstantiation (death) the likelihood that your imprinted metamatter will, for a time, reject entanglement opportunities from dissimilar host cells (of even your same or similar species) in favor of entanglement with cells that contain your familial DNA which are more compatible with its imprinting, thereby increasing the probability of reinstantiating you in your former family line or if less finely imprinted, to any random line in your previous species, or if less finely tuned still, to another species entirely. Also when we discover the entanglement molecule in nature and in the cell, just as we eventually discovered the DNA molecule in the cell decades after Darwin presented his theory of evolution by natural selection, likewise this may allow us to develop technologies capable of detecting and tracking each individuals unique QEF in this life or across multiple instantiations. This alone will change the world, at the very least it will change the way we write our wills. Also for the first time in human history we could begin to take practical actions in life that would affect our reinstantiation prospects into our next life, thereby tailoring your next instantiation ahead of time, minus the mysticism and ideology.


Testable Element(s) of the Hypothesis:

One initial approach would be to seek evidence for, or against some fundamental aspect of the working hypothesis: Test for the existence, or lack thereof, of the proposed entanglement cells (EC) that establish and maintain life via the QE connection in complex hosts: Termination of the host's EC's and no other cells, should result in the termination of the subject.

Premise: Can death be induced without damage? Can an otherwise healthy living subject be terminated with empirically no physical damage contributable to the subject’s termination, Barring any limitations of technical proficiency or of equipment in analyzing and identifying the root cause of the subject’s death.

Axiom: There exists some absolute minimum numberof cells that may be terminated in any complex organism whereby such cells may be scientifically established to be the root and only cause of death of the subject organism with no pre-mortem adverse effects to other cells in the subject. Cells that meet these criteria are candidates for the theorized entanglement cells and the collection has a high probability of including some or all of the subject’s proposed entanglement cells.

Practical Test: Perform controlled experiments using approved subjects, i.e. fruit flies, to terminate the minimal number of cells per specimen to conclusively induce death of the test subject. Carefully repeat and document the number and location of target cells per subject for each scientifically substantiated successful sample. Repeatability per species is mandatory as the specifics may vary from species to species or subject to subject. In qualifying samples the cells that are the root cause of death must be gradually minimized and physically isolated. Cellular damage must be limited to only the target cells for a duration beginning at the time of the target cells death up to and including the time of confirmed subject death. In other words, for a successful trial no cells in the subject other than the target cells may be adversely physically affected pre-mortem.
Click to expand...
Nice word salad.
 
origin said:
No it is a normal case of entropy. The entropy of separated oil and water is higher than the entropy of a container of oil and water that is shook up. That is why the oil and water separate.
When oil and water are shaken up the dropplets of oil will cause the water molecules to take on a highly ordered arrangement of hydrogen bonds, forming a sort of cage around the hydrophobic oil dropplet. The surface of the oil dropplet is the driver of the water molecules ordered arrangement. So, smaller oil dropplets have a larger surface area per volume than larger oil dropplets. This all means that it is energetically favorable for small oil dropplets to coalesce into larger dropplets with a corresponding increase in entropy. That is, 2 small oil dropplets have more order than 1 oil dropplet of the same mass as the 2 small dropplets. The most energetically favorable situation is a minimized surface area between the oil and water which means a layered arrangement of the oil and water. Since this is the lowest level of the order in the water molecules this means it is the highest entropy state.
Click to expand...

When we form an emulsion, we increase the surface tension between the water and the oil. There is potential energy stored in the surface tension proportional to the surface contact area. This internal energy outweighs the entropy. The emulsion, like other chemical systems, follows the Gibbs Free Energy equation, where the free energy G = H-TS; H is the enthalpy or internal energy (surface tension in this case), T is temperature and S is entropy.

In the emulsion, the internal energy dominates the entropy allowing the entropy to lower because this path allows the H to lower more than the potential increase caused by the change in entropy. The G term has the final say. Water is not inert relative to the changes in its internal energy H, that oil and organics will cause. The lipids form a bilayer membrane again and again due to H dominating S so G is minimized. If we heat the water toward boiling point, the T in the TS term can cause the S to dominate due to the product of TS.

Relative to water and oil, pure water can form four hydrogen bonds with other water molecules. Liquid water has a lot of internal structuring. Liquid water is not a random bunch of water molecules. When water makes contact with an oil interface, it can't form the four hydrogen bonds in the same way it can with water molecules. It can still form weak hydrogen bonds with the oil, but not the strong ones it can form in pure water. This change adds internal energy, at the surface that we call surface tension.

The water structure, around the drop of oil in the emulsion, is due to the 2-3 hydrogen bonds that can still form with other water, all shifting the binary state of the hydrogen bond to the covalent side to form sort of a 2-D water polymer. The state is at slightly lower energy and helps to compensate for the loss due the oil. The 1-2 hydrogen bonds in contact with the oil have their binary switched to the polar setting. This is much weaker than the polar setting of the hydrogen bonding within the water-water system. The tension occurs because the covalent side of the switch, between the water, expands the hydrogen bonds pulling tension on the weak bonds to the oil.

In osmotic pressure, the water will migrate from the pure water side, to the side with the solute, because this is the direction of the higher entropy; more non-water contact creates disorder. It has to do with the ordering that is found in liquid water, due to four possible hydrogen bonds, being the gold standard of order. Water is very unique relative to organics, allowing H to lower S in the most situations.

Other solvents may be governed by chaos and dice, because they are not the gold standard. Water is unique to itself, using H to lower S more than any other solvent. This is why if we replace water with any other solvent we lose the H that can man handle S causing life to stop working due to too much S and disorder.
 
Last edited:
wellwisher said:
When we form an emulsion, we increase the surface tension between the water and the oil. There is potential energy stored in the surface tension proportional to the surface contact area. This internal energy outweighs the entropy. The emulsion, like other chemical systems, follows the Gibbs Free Energy equation, where the free energy G = H-TS; H is the enthalpy or internal energy (surface tension in this case), T is temperature and S is entropy.

In the emulsion, the internal energy dominates the entropy allowing the entropy to lower because this path allows the H to lower more than the potential increase caused by the change in entropy. The G term has the final say. Water is not inert relative to the changes in its internal energy H, that oil and organics will cause. The lipids form a bilayer membrane again and again due to H dominating S so G is minimized.

Relative to water and oil, pure water can form four hydrogen bonds with other water molecules. Liquid water has a lot of internal structuring. Liquid water is not a random bunch of water molecules. When water makes contact with an oil interface, it can't form the four hydrogen bonds in the same way it can with water molecules. It can still form weak hydrogen bonds with the oil, but not the strong ones it can form in pure water. This change adds internal energy, at the surface that we call surface tension.

The water structure, around the drop of oil in the emulsion, is due to the 2-3 hydrogen bonds that can still form with other water, all shifting the binary state of the hydrogen bond to the covalent side to form sort of a 2-D water polymer. The state is at slightly lower energy and helps to compensate for the loss due the oil. The 1-2 hydrogen bonds in contact with the oil have their binary switched to the polar setting. This is much weaker than the polar setting of the hydrogen bonding within the water-water system. The tension occurs because the covalent side of the switch, between the water, expands the hydrogen bonds pulling tension on the weak bonds to the oil.

In osmotic pressure, the water will migrate from the pure water side, to the side with the solute, because this is the direction of the higher entropy; more non-water contact creates disorder. It has to do with the ordering that is found in liquid water, due to four possible hydrogen bonds, being the gold standard of order. Water is very unique relative to organics, allowing H to lower S in the most situations.

Other solvents may be governed by chaos and dice, because they are not the gold standard. Water is unique to itself, using H to lower S more than any other solvent. This is why if we replace water with any other solvent we lose the H that can man handle S causing life to stop working.
Click to expand...
So you have changed your mind and now agree that when oil and water separate into 2 layers from dropplets of oil in the water the entropy will increase.
 
origin said:
So you have changed your mind and now agree that when oil and water separate into 2 layers from dropplets of oil in the water the entropy will increase.
Click to expand...

Water and oil will separate into two layers, because this path lowers the free energy G. Free energy G = H-TS. Free energy is composed of two interconnected terms, H and TS. In this case, H or the internal energy of the surface tension, drives the lowering of free energy.

A common misunderstanding is, entropy S is often treated as an independent variable that walks to the beat of its own drum. This is connected to the traditions of statistics and chaos ruling the universe. But Professor Gibbs discovered decades ago, that entropy S was not independent in chemical systems, but was dependent/related to changes in internal energy H, via a more comprehensive relationship he called Gibb's free energy.

There are situations where H=0, such that the entropy S is the only child and chaos defines the entire free energy change; second law net total. But water and organics always have H showing up, due the hydrogen bonding wild card. The H due to water can chain chaos to the wall.

The bias of the statistical traditions assumes S always dominates, which is not always true in chemistry, because any type of disorder comes at the price of changing binding energies. The inert solvent assumption sort of satisfies the need of S dominating by making H=0. They fool themselves into a false sense of reality.
 
wellwisher said:
Water and oil will separate into two layers, because this path lowers the free energy G. Free energy G = H-TS. Free energy is composed of two interconnected terms, H and TS. In this case, H or the internal energy of the surface tension, drives the lowering of free energy.

A common misunderstanding is, entropy S is often treated as an independent variable that walks to the beat of its own drum. This is connected to the traditions of statistics and chaos ruling the universe. But Professor Gibbs discovered decades ago, that entropy S was not independent in chemical systems, but was dependent/related to changes in internal energy H, via a more comprehensive relationship he called Gibb's free energy.

There are situations where H=0, such that the entropy S is the only child and chaos defines the entire free energy change; second law net total. But water and organics always have H showing up, due the hydrogen bonding wild card. The H due to water can chain chaos to the wall.

The bias of the statistical traditions assumes S always dominates, which is not always true in chemistry, because any type of disorder comes at the price of changing binding energies. The inert solvent assumption sort of satisfies the need of S dominating by making H=0. They fool themselves into a false sense of reality.
Click to expand...
OK. But you agree that the entropy is higher for the oil and water that have separated into layers than when the oil is in the form of dropplets in the water.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top