Talk:Dissipative system

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Systems Mid‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.

Open systems

On 9 Decmebr 2005, User:Seberia Eagle asked on the article page:

A dissipative system is defined for an open system, while a map on a set is clearly not an open system, at least formally. So What is the inherent connection between these two definitins of dissipative systems? (For a definition of disspative systems for open systems, see Dissipative dynamical systems by Jan C. Willems. For that in Mathematics, see the article wandering sets or Chapter 6 in The Ergodic Theory of Discrete Groups by Peter J. Nicholls.)

Dunno. linas 17:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

critique

I am referring to the line: "A dissipative system is characterized by the spontaneous appearance of symmetry breaking (anisotropy) and..." In particular to the equivalent use of "symmetry breaking" in general and "anisotropy". To my knowledge, the term isotropy refers to spatial symmetry in particular, not to symmetry in general.

What did the author intend to say?

Dissipation

I made some notes in the talk page on "dissipation", referring to open and closed systems. I think that section should be ditched as a separate entry and all discussion on dissipation, conservation and open and closed systems should go here. Thoughts? Jas 11:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I suggest that this article be merged with the article on "Quantum Open Systems".

Quantum dissipative systems

The section "quantum dissipative systems" in this article seems to be a brief and possibly slightly confused summary of issues surrounding the arrow of time, rather than to do with dissipative structures per se. Worse, it promotes a particular approach to the problem of time's arrow (namely the idea that irreversibility arises due to interaction with an environment in thermal equilibrium) when others can be taken (the Brussels school's 'nonlinear' approach, the MaxEnt approach, probably many others) and the issue is contentious.

I think the section should be replaced by a link to the arrow of time article, with a brief sentence explaining why it is relevant.

80.47.108.193 19:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong name / introduction

Starting the first six words, the statement is wrong:

A dissipative system (or dissipative structure...

A dissipative structure is not equal to a dissipative system. There should be two different articles or a chapter dissipative structures in dissipative systems. At the moment, both different terms are mixed and none of the terms is correctly described. Rgds --Cvf-ps (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, introduction has been improved, much better now. --Cvf-ps (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the "Overview" section starts by talking about a dissipative structure, which seems to be a kind of "persistent structure" that lives by dissipating. I'm cool with that.

Then the article proceeds with two additional sections, Dissipative systems in control theory and Quantum dissipative systems, neither of which have anything to do with dissipative systems in the sense of the Overview, and even less to do with dissipative structures. These sections concern other uses of the term.

So the "Overview" section is effectively the overview only of itself.

178.38.83.75 (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dissipative system in control theory

I think the dissipative system in control theory is different from that in thermodynamic.

In control theory, the dissipative system means that "dissipation inequality" holds, ie the change of V(t)(energy of the system in some form) is no more than the integral to the product of system input and system output. These is nothing about the dissipative system in thermodynamic.--Wolfch (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They look quite different to me, too. They should be in different articles.

It reminds me of the problem with "adiabatic", which needed different articles for quantum and thermodynamics even though there is a vague relationship. 178.38.83.75 (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section entitled "Dissipative systems in control theory"

This section has some serious problems, though I think it's just due to a careless save or two.

(1) The spaces U and Y are not defined.

(2) The function w is introduced but not used, or its use is not completed.

(3) Apparently the definition is given twice, with two overlapping variants, forming an incomplete sentence. It must be a careless save.

178.38.83.75 (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed this, I hope. 178.38.83.75 (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, this section, which concerns everyday engineering systems terminology, really belongs in a different article than the Prigogine concept.

178.38.83.75 (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dissipative system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070312032928/http://sciphilos.info:80/doc%20PAGES%20/docDaviesSelfOrgStru.html to http://sciphilos.info/doc%20PAGES%20/docDaviesSelfOrgStru.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a simpler type of dissipative system?

Is there a simpler type of dissipative system? The article on Dissipation Factor speaks of 'loss rate of energy' in an oscillating system (such as with an electronic circuit). Can this type of system be added to this article, or did the other article misuse the definition of dissipative system? 12.33.223.211 (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Anderson's Criticism of Existence of Stable Dissipative Structures

I have come across this book chapter by Phil Anderson and Daniel Stein on "Broken Symmetry, Emergent Properties, Dissipative Structures, Life" which claims that dissipative structures are inherently unstable. I don't know what the current status of this debate is. Should we add this to the article? Does anyone have more recent update on the status of this debate? Sprlzrd (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that is dissipated?

I think there is a major problem with this entry. It never highlights what is being dissipated by a dissipative system! The conventional answer would be free energy, which is mentioned only in passing in the entry. I urge whoever edits this entry to not use that term. Instead, I suggest that the entry use this paper for insight into what is being dissipated by a dissipative system: 'Escapement mechanisms and the conversion of disequilibria; the engines of creation'[1] The central claim of the paper is "It’s not energy, or energy transfer, or energy consumption that makes things happen, it’s disequilibria; primarily through their ‘interconversion’; interconversions that operate by mechanistically tying events that dissipate one to events that create another." See especially the discussion in Section 12.1 and 12.2, which explains why the concept of dissipation of free energy is so misleading.

The entry could say something like, "Dissipative systems create structures in the form of disequilibria by dissipating larger disequilibria." And then it could cite [1]. If one really wanted to be bold, one could add to the entry, "Thus, dissipative systems are engines of creation."

[1] http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/REPRINTS/2017/Branscomb%20NG%20escapement%20mechanisms%20and%20conversion%20of%20disequilibria%202017.pdf

--Nick (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]