Comments on: Molecular machines might temporarily escape entropy http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1214 examining transformative technology Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:23:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: selif http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1214#comment-531166 selif Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:53:14 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1214#comment-531166 I'll admit I don't know a whole lot about this subject, but I have to say that it almost reads like these nanomachines will either not age or possibly travel in time. Wouldn't that be fun I’ll admit I don’t know a whole lot about this subject, but I have to say that it almost reads like these nanomachines will either not age or possibly travel in time. Wouldn’t that be fun

]]> By: jazz http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1214#comment-7326 jazz Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:27:23 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1214#comment-7326 pay attention people, A law that is based the assertion that it only applies to a small range of magnitude cannot be right. The second law of thermodynamics and indeed all of thermodynamics is based upon the prinicple that the statistical mechanics conceals the intricacy of the nanoscale dynamics of particles. If at a microscopic scale this law can be broken it cant have been right in the first place. The fluctuation theorem provides a generalisation of the second law, a new and more accurate version even. And the experimental apparatus, the bead and the water bath did make up a closed system, so it does work. If you do the mathematics you will see that it does work, it's a case you getting one's head around probability ratios and all that crap. pay attention people,
A law that is based the assertion that it only applies to a small range of magnitude cannot be right. The second law of thermodynamics and indeed all of thermodynamics is based upon the prinicple that the statistical mechanics conceals the intricacy of the nanoscale dynamics of particles. If at a microscopic scale this law can be broken it cant have been right in the first place. The fluctuation theorem provides a generalisation of the second law, a new and more accurate version even. And the experimental apparatus, the bead and the water bath did make up a closed system, so it does work. If you do the mathematics you will see that it does work, it’s a case you getting one’s head around probability ratios and all that crap.

]]> By: Corwin http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1214#comment-2714 Corwin Mon, 22 Jul 2002 20:28:31 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1214#comment-2714 <p><strong>Re:Oooooookay....</strong></p> <p>True... and I suppose it bears mentioning that the second law states 'in a closed system, energy will never move from lesser amounts to greater.'<br /> <br /> The 'entropy always increases' bit is a very BAD paraphrase that only survives because the creationists have jumped on it. (Because in their minds, entropy = disorder.)<br /> <br /> But since this isn't a closed system it doesn't apply anyway...</p> Re:Oooooookay….

True… and I suppose it bears mentioning that the second law states 'in a closed system, energy will never move from lesser amounts to greater.'

The 'entropy always increases' bit is a very BAD paraphrase that only survives because the creationists have jumped on it. (Because in their minds, entropy = disorder.)

But since this isn't a closed system it doesn't apply anyway…

]]> By: Steve_Moniz http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1214#comment-2713 Steve_Moniz Mon, 22 Jul 2002 19:19:24 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1214#comment-2713 <p><strong>Re:Oooooookay....</strong></p> <p>As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't. The laws of thermodynamics were developed for large systems, and (the 2nd particularly) for closed systems. Designing an experiment that gets around these assumptions doesn't invalidate the law.</p> Re:Oooooookay….

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't. The laws of thermodynamics were developed for large systems, and (the 2nd particularly) for closed systems. Designing an experiment that gets around these assumptions doesn't invalidate the law.

]]> By: Corwin http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1214#comment-2712 Corwin Mon, 22 Jul 2002 17:00:42 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1214#comment-2712 <p><strong>Oooooookay....</strong></p> <p>Would someone like to explain to me just exactly how this violates the Second Law? (The real one, not the one generally misquoted by Creationists?)</p> Oooooookay….

Would someone like to explain to me just exactly how this violates the Second Law? (The real one, not the one generally misquoted by Creationists?)

]]>