Talk:Maxwell's demon

New content

Hello everyone, I have done some work recently on Maxwell's demon and the solution. I have published a paper on it and would like to add a short excerpt on the findings to the criticism and development section. Is everyone okay with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanS333 (talk • contribs)

Not as long as it sourced to Facebook. Wknight94 ^talk 19:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page, Alan. I'm afraid I agree with Wknight; in order to be included, material needs to be sourced to reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. In this case, it would need to be from a peer reviewed journal or equivalent. I don't believe that's the case, right? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No it is not in a magazine or in any other corporate owned publishing because I am mainly against corporations, they put profit first above anything at the expense of values. It is however a scientific paper which has been published. It was sourced to the face book notes so that people could see the actual paper if they need it to, but I guess i could put that in further reading or elsewhere or not at all if it causes such pandemonium. However on my last edit i took the facebook part out and just left it as the paper itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanS333 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Where was it published. If it was published in something that is peer reviewed, even if it is an amateur publication, it can sometimes be valid (I'm thinking for example the Society of Ancients publication, Slingshot. Yes these are all amateur submissions, but my G-d, if you mix your Parthians up with your Sassenids, heaven help you, because these guys won't. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Independent Publishing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanS333 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like it was self-published. So, it is not okay for Wikipedia. (Self-published sources can be used on Wikipedia in only a few special circumstances). Cardamon (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Self publishing is as verifiable as other types of publishings. Just because you aren't paying a company does not mean is less verifiable. what are the special circumstances? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.103.44 (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at the link to reliable sources that Floquenbeam provided you? Also, maybe you could read more about Wikipedia means by verifiabilty. It doesn’t mean that we can verify that it got posted it on Facebook yesterday. As an aside, some journals are published by non-profits and some journals do not have page charges. The circumstances when a self-published source can be used are mentioned in the link in my previous reply. Roughly, one of them is when a recognized expert in a field is taking about his or her own field, and saying something not too surprising, and we can’t find a better source for what they are saying. The others are as a source for information about the author(s) that there is no real reason to doubt (one example might be a notable person saying in their blog what their birthday is), or as a source for the actual words of the author(s). Yet another requirement is notability. Generally, something posted recently on Facebook would not qualify. Cardamon (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Bennett's reasoning

The article implies that the demon works if he has an unlimited memory. I read Bennett's papers and it does seem to be what he says, explaining himself by saying an unlimited memory means it's not cyclical and therefore does not violate Carnot cycle rules. In order to store the memory bit, Landauer's minimal energy limit for a bit, E=kT*ln(2), it has to be extracted from the molecule's energy E=3/2*kT to change the state of the memory, but Bennett does not mention this.

If Bennett is right, then why not use a reversible AND gate to detect the presence of 2 molecules coming towards the gate and then open it? Even Bennett says a reversible gate like this would cost only 1 bit. It's waiting on 2 "bits" of energy to come along before spending 1 bit to open the door. My best guess is that the memory bit necessary is the same as the bit energy needed in Feynman's ratchet and pawl or any other minimal "door", which is itself a memory bit. I mean, the minimal bit energy has a 50% chance of being in the wrong place, and if the door has to wait a lot longer for 2 molecules to be coming, then the door is going to be accidentally open a lot longer, exactly offsetting since both the gas molecule energy and the bit energy are based on thermal fluctuations. Ywaz (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Author of ref 13 is Christensen, not Penrose and Hameroff

Sir Roger Penrose & Dr. Stuart Hameroff (2011). "Consciousness and the Universe: Quantum Physics, Evolution, Brain and Mind," Chapter XIV Does the Universe have Cosmological Memory? If so does this imply Cosmic Consciousness?. Oxford University Press.

Maybe I don't understand reference rules, but usually, isn't the author noted and not the editors? From the article, you can see that the author is Walter J. Christensen Jr.; from Volume XIV, you can see that the editors are Penrose and Hameroff. The referencing rules seem to be fairly clear?

On second look, that journal seems to have nothing to do with Oxford University Press.

--Labreuer (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Christopher Stasheff's "A Wizard in Rhyme" series has the demon as a character

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Wizard_in_Rhyme

Maxwell's Demon is introduced as a character in this fantasy series by Christopher Stasheff, the demon is quick to distance himself from the Hell crowd, and aids the eponymous wizard (Matthew Mantrell) by increasing entropy in various ways to combat an opposing army. One such way is by decreasing the amount of time metal takes to rust, so that the army's armor and weapons fall apart overnight. 68.97.202.187 (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Ratchet

A molecular ratchet that converts shaftwork into usable chemical energy might be designed. Or at least a brownian-motion-sized nano-ratchet that stores random collisions as nano-spring energy. Self winding watches convert random motions into usable macroscopic spring energy - which could be released by driving a generator to electrolyze water, and the spring become available for further recharge. None of these schemes require information storage. Sillybilly (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, genetic life on Earth has not come up with shaft and continuously rotating structures. An owl's head can turn 360° but not continuously in the same direction. A dog's tail can rotate, and I can do stirring motions with my hands, but at the joints there is no shaft-like continuously rotating slip. So life on Earth may have never come up with a ratcheting "enzyme" that would violate the 2nd law, something that nevertheless may be possible to create. Sillybilly (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)