Jump to content

Talk:Entropy and life/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Some Clarification

Would it be possible to add some sort of note to this page, similar to that found on the Life page to say that the theory only distinguishes living systems from closed non-living systems and doesn't provide a way to distinguish between open non-living systems and living ones? This is explained on the Life page but this one leaves the reader with the impression that the Entropy and Life theory could be (and is) used as a definitive definition of life, which is not the case. Danikat (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Entropy and life

Hi. The many arguments that insist that the orderliness of life presents no great mystery ignore the astronomic improbabilty of life's structure. The common view that life's great order occurs with increasing disorder of the environment says nothing of what actually directs the motion of atoms and molecules to assemble as a cell or an organism. This is what so perplexed Erwin Schrodinger. How do we account for life's chronological organization of molecular events? As he noted, this "certainty" of molecuar interactions is only found in living things. If you're interested in this approach, look at my book, "The Vital Dimension, A Quest for Mind, Memory and God in the Thickness of Time" or www.nonphysical.org Thanks for the indepth overview of the subject! Carl Gunther —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl Gunther (talk • contribs) 04:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for starting the stub at entropy, I built it up and moved it to Entropy and life; maybe you can add some more to it? Later:--Sadi Carnot 03:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think I can add much to this topic, you seem to know much more than me. I don't even have an education in a related field, I'm just a computer engineer who happened to have read "What is Life?" and liked it! :-) Anyway, thank you for expanding on the subject. 14:12, 7 November 2006 --User:Cmbreuel
No problem, thanks again for starting it. --Sadi Carnot 14:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Note

This page was moved here from entropy because that page is pushing 44 kilobytes, and "entropy and life" is a big topic. --Sadi Carnot 03:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a list of related search results:

  1. entropy energy time – 6,490,000 results
  2. entropy energy order – 5,310,000 results
  3. entropy energy information – 5,070,000 results
  4. entropy energy life - 1,670,000
  5. entropy energy chaos – 1,050,000 results
  6. entropy energy disorder – 694,000 results
  7. entropy energy dispersion – 639,000 results
  8. entropy energy dissipation – 503,000 results
  9. entropy energy irreversibility – 164,000 results
  10. entropy energy dispersal – 63,000 results
  11. entropy energy disgregation – 88 results

If anyone knows of other related search terms, please add them to the list. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 03:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Consolidation possibilities

Pages with related material are: Evolution and entropy, Self-organization, dissipative structures, and there is probably more somewhere? We should also try to build a good reading list on this page. Later: --Sadi Carnot 03:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments from Talk:Entropy moved here

To note, User:Cmbreuel recently started the entropy and life stub on the 4th of Nov; I built it up and moved it to it's own page: entropy and life (because this page is pushing 44 kb). I would suggest we merge most of the entropy stuff on the evolution to entropy and life leaving a short paragraph there with a link to main. In this manner we can move this discussion there: Talk:Entropy and life, where it belongs, and also consolidate all the "information theory and life", "dissipative structures theory and life", "complexity theory and life", etc., to one page; thus keeping things organized. Any thoughts? --Sadi Carnot 03:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Size is not really an issue. The 30 meg limit is more of a relic than a true guideline -- memory is very cheap. In any case, I can point to any number of articles well in excess of 30 meg.
Also, I edited entropy and life for a number of reasons. The "over the last century" part needs to be sourced, the creationist misuse of entropy because of 150 year old misonceptions needed to be addressed and the overall writing needed to be smoother. •Jim62sch• 22:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jim62, I put in the basic origin source, i.e. Rudolf Clausius (1863); others who have wrote about entropy and life are:

Most of these people have books (which I have) that can be order at Amazon.com; I'm sure there are plent more; probably some new 2006 books that I haven't seen yet. Later: --Sadi Carnot 01:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Not really convinced. IMHO the discussion culminated with Schrödinger, had some heavyweights still interested in the 1960s and is now mostly out of biological journals. If I got the latter point wrong, can you give some numbers from reliable citation service instead of Google numbers.
I'd guess by now its highest relevance is by amateur efforts in disproving Intelligent Design.
Pjacobi 16:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Pjacobi, I don't know what you mean? Here, I'm just typing a nice reference list of noted people in history who have written about entropy and life? I agree, though, that Schrodinger's 1944 book What is Life? is the most well-known, which is basically because he wrote it for the layperson, it is easy to read, only 90 pages, and that he wrote it after he had became popular for winning the Nobel prize in 1933. The similar case holds for Prigogine, with his most popular 1984 book Order out of Chaos, which he wrote after winning the Nobel prize in 1977. --Sadi Carnot 16:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't dispute much writing (apart from the fact, that it is rather broad term) but much research. Perhaps I'm totally mistaken, but neither name-dropping nor Google will refute this.
I'm looking for
  • Citation counts
  • Research project homepages at university sites
  • Curricula
Can you provide some of these?
Pjacobi 19:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
As for current research, you might want to check out the latest issue of the Journal of Entropy. As for earlier "research" on entropy most of it was with respect to calculations and constructions of early steam tables (I think?), which date pretty far back. James Joule's "ice rubbing" experiments (research) and paddle-wheel heat-generation in water experiments (research) from the 1840s, for example, we're early precursory entropy-related experiments (research). Kelvin later used this type of research as a basis for postulating the “heat death of the universe” (as based on entropy tendencies). FYI, I'll be running low on time over the next two months, so I probably won't be able to debate very much. Later: --Sadi Carnot 06:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Pjacobi, I agree wth you on the criteria you set forth -- those are important questions that need to be answered. •Jim62sch• 08:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
@Sadi: As User:Linas put it rather bluntly at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics:
Heh. Entropy? Do chemists actually do anything any more with entropy, other than teach it? How about physicists? I humbly suggest that the only people around who still perform actual, current research on entropy are the mathematicians :-) [1]
Indeed. One may have to look at differential geometry, probability theory, ergodic theory for current research.
--Pjacobi 09:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment

I came across a statement about Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz that his A Treatise on the Causes of the Movements of the Planets posits that the universe by nature is negentropic, meaning self-developing. __meco 20:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Leibniz died in 1716, the concept of entropy was developed in 1854, the term negentropy, i.e. negative entropy, was stated first in 1944. Your comment, subsequently, is an anachronism and thus incorrect. --Sadi Carnot 05:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Useful article

Discusses life as a self-perpetuating chemical processes that locally reduces entropy, and what forms such a process may take. JulesH 12:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I downloaded the issue (cost = $7.95), it's a decent read, but about the same as Stuart Kauffman's 1995 book At Home in the Universe. --Sadi Carnot 18:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Prigogine

Why is Prigogine not discussed in this article?--Filll (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Quote source

The quote: "I’d look for an entropy reduction, since this must be a general characteristic of life." seems to appear in 'Gaia : a new look at life on earth' by James Lovelock.[2].\

I found it here [3]

Tyler Szabo 00:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler.szabo (talk • contribs)

Which entropy??

The entropy of thermodynamics is denoted 'S'. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states the net entropy(S) of the universe always rises. The entropy of Information Theory (DNA information for example) is denoted 'H'. A decrease of information causes entropy(H) to rise and visa-versa. Entropy(H) can rise or fall but uses thermodynamic energy to do so. This use of thermodynamic energy causes entropy(S) to rise.

It seems the two entropies are being used interchangeably in this article but please correct me if I'm wrong. Pterodactyloid (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a self-published paper that has the trappings of scientific work but several hallmarks of WP:FRINGE material. But there is a simpler argument to be made: this work so poorly written and sourced that it would not pass peer-review except in the most inattentive of journals. Even making the generous assumption that this is not WP:FRINGE, even giving this the benefit of an external link is going to fall afoul of WP:UNDUE. GaramondLethe 08:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

<redacted>

BTW, the drawing of the thermodynamic system was made and put here by Libb Thims and is a copyright violation of my drawing in the paper "Life on Earth - flow of Energy and Entropy": http://www.digital-recordings.com/publ/publife.html I never gave him permission to do so. Also he changed the temperatures involved (why ?). So drawing does not make any scientific sense at this moment. It should be replaced with figure No.1 and No.2 from my paper. One can also use just figure No.1 and indicate temperatures which are on figure No.2

Best regards, Dr.Marek Roland, Canada www.digital-recordings.com


[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.117.167 (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Roland: Your conflict with <redacted> is something you'll have to sort out on your own. Copyright violations are something we take very seriously here and I'll refer this to people more competent that I am at dealing with these kind of issues. As to "fraudulently removing the link": regardless of the reasons given by <redacted>, in my judgement the link is not appropriate for this article as it does not appear to have been peer reviewed or cited and is of generally low quality. If you would like another editor to review this decision I'll be happy to help you start that process. Continuing to add the link back to the article without reaching WP:CONSENSUS that the link is appropriate may lead to your account being temporarily blocked. GaramondLethe 08:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

<redacted>

Oppose Among other issues, the leap of faith from the paper's conclusion to a recommended diet smacks of wp:fringe I oppose adding the link to digital-recordings.com Jim1138 (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I had missed the diet, and there's cancer treatment discussion beneath that. Ok, this is definitely wp:fringe. GaramondLethe 11:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Your writing here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jim1138 ) indicates that you are totally ignorant person on the subjects discussed here. Please explain what is your background and do not hide yourself behind nicks. I demand review of these issues by people who are knoledgable and honest. Dr.Marek Roland, Canada ----

What you do is a scientific sabotage. You have no knowledge in physics or biophysics. You are a sociologist. On the other hand I am a pioneer in the area of biophysics of life. If you think logically and you are an honest person, then you should restore this link and apologize to me and Wikipedia users. Dr.Marek Roland, Canada ----


I just came across this controversy totally at random. I'm mostly a user and lately a minor contributor to Wikipedia. I'm not a physicist, I'm a computer scientist with a strong amateur interest in physics (e.g. books by Brian Green) The Life on Earth paper lost me when it got into the math but the first few paragraphs seemed clear and frankly one of the best discussions on entropy and life that I've come across (I've also read the Schroedinger small book on the topic that he referenced). I agree that the links seem to be fringe to me as well but IMO you shouldn't condemn a paper because of its links. There is nothing about those fringe topics in the original paper under discussion. He merely links to them and says that the sciece he described supports them. It seems to me that if you are going to exclude the paper as fringe it should be based on the content of the paper itself not what it links to.
On the other hand to Dr. Roland i would like to suggest that you try to not take this so personally (I realize that's easier said then done when its something you feel deeply about). I think the confrontational tone you are taking only hurts your case. The process here takes time and isn't perfect but its pretty amazing and most people are dedicated to making Wikipedia even better not to any personal agenda. Just my 2 cents. Mdebellis (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


Thank you Mdebellis. This is the first intelligent and honest opinion. There is nothing fringe in the paper or its links. Everything which I write about are simply derivations and conclusions on the basis of quantum physics and thermodynamics. If you consider quantum physics and thermodynamic fringe then indeed I am guilty of using these. Another, but serious issue is my copyright violation by the drawing and by a book which is listed twice in here. As always people have tendency to concentrate on small things instead of major issues ... Dr.Marek Roland, Canada ----


Hi Mdebellis.
I'm going to take care here to speak only to the content of the web page in question. It's pseudoscience. It certainly looks like a scientific paper with citations and stilted prose and pretty math. But to someone who has a graduate-level understanding of biology and information theory it reads like it was put together by a bright high school student who was doing her best to sound "scientific". I'm not sure that I'm going to be able to convince you that this is the case, but I'd like to unpack the abstract and show you what I see. Of course, there's no need to take my word for this and you're welcome to ask any of the mathematical biologists and information theorists who hang out here for a second opinion.
  1. We begin with a cite to "Darwin's Theory of Evolution". Darwin's theory ceased to count for much with the introduction of Ronald Fisher's statistical models, which were in turn replaced by the modern evolutionary synthesis which in turn has been supplemented by Neutral Theory and, later, Nearly Neutral Theory. If you've never heard of these, don't worry; I hadn't heard of them either until I took a graduate class in evolutionary biology. These later theories are the mathematical expression of evolution. Dr. Roland has never heard of them either and cites Time magazine, a popular book of essays and a popular book on artificial life. Contrast this with an actual work of science, Evolution as Entropy, where the chapter on evolution begins by citing the peer-reviewed works of Sewall Wright, Motoo Kimura, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Richard Lewontin and Douglas J. Futuyma.
  2. Roland then begins to cite the technical literature for the proposition that "some aspects of (evolution) are still not clear". His first cite is to an otherwise-ignored paper by Ebeling that defines evolution as "(quasi-)infinite, branching chains of self-organization cycles" (which has nothing to do with biological evolution). The second is to a (at the time) 20-year old undergraduate biology textbook. The third is to a 20-year old cell physiology textbook. And the last is a cell biology textbook. It is not made clear how one should open any of these textbooks and discover aspects of evolution that "are still not clear".
  3. The next batch of citation botches Darwin: fitness is a property of individuals, not species.
  4. "It is obvious that the entropy of the Biosphere is decreasing continuously...." The word "obviously" is a reliable signpost to the weak point of an argument. Brooks and Wiley argue the exact opposite, but they have the advantage of using actual math. (See chapter 2 of Evolution as Entropy, 2nd Ed.)
  5. We conclude the abstract with a sweeping promise to explain "the principles responsible for the formation and maintenance of life on Earth". The promise remains unfulfilled.
There is no reason at all this paper needs to be cited in wikipedia.
As an aside, part of my professional responsibilities is performing peer-review on published work in my area. The study of pseudoscience has been an active hobby of my for almost ten years now. Taking apart these kind of articles is something that I have plenty of practice doing. I also submit my own work for peer-review. If Dr. Roland wants to be taken seriously, that's the first step.
I hope that was somewhat helpful.
GaramondLethe 04:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed reply. I'm convinced. I might still quiblle a bit with calling the Life on Earth paper psuedoscience. To me pseudoscience are things such as Creationist Theories. But you've convinced me that it doesn't meet the standards for good science that should be included in Wikipedia. Thanks again for taking the time to reply. Mdebellis (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for reading, and I do take your point about pseudoscience. I now think this paper is better classified as an innocent imitation of scientific work, rather than work intended to further a cause. GaramondLethe 23:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


My paper is much more informative, original and scientific than this poor article / contribution to Wikipedia. This is a culmination of 10 years of work by number of people who do not know what they are talking about. Rating of this by readers and number of links indicated by www.google.com tell the truth. Book by Schneider and Sagan cited 2 times here is not at all original and has diagram from my paper without permission violating copyright. Yet the editors judged it as important. You are simply bunch of ingorants in science. Dr.Marek Roland, Canada ____ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Marek Roland (talk • contribs) 11:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


Hi Garamond Lethe. First of all - you should put your text in a proper order, not in front of my response. Secondly my paper was written in 1992, so your criticism about 20-year old references is totally wrong. I can see that you are trying at all cost to discredit my paper and me. You totally lack objectivity. Dr.Marek Roland, Canada http://www.digital-recordings.com/publ/publife.html


— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.117.167 (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The 20-year old (at the time of your writing) references are these.
[12] Phillips E. A., Basic Ideas in Biology, (The Macmillan Company, New York, 1971).
[14] Howland J. L., Cell physiology, (The Macmillan Company, New York, 1973).
GaramondLethe 07:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


Hi Garamond Lethe. I do not know what are you trying to prove ? You do not see the merits of my publication and simplicity and elegance of it ? Then you are intellectually-blind person. Trying to build your own ego at the cost of others ? What you are writing is not constructive at all. What you practice here is simply a scientific sabotage ! BTW, current write-up in Wikipedia is very poor (see the rating by the users). It is also not very informative and objective. No wonder, most of the effort here is spent on scientific sabotage and undue, shallow and vicious criticism by ego-maniacs with very little scientific background. Main victim is Wikipedia and readers who want to learn new things. Dr.Marek Roland, Canada http://www.digital-recordings.com/publ/publife.html ----

.

Gamma rays bombarding Earth!

The diagram depicts gamma rays from the sun irradiating the Earth. While there are likely some, the vast majority of energy are photons of infrared, then visible light. Gamma is emitted by fusion reactions in the core of the sun, but convert to heat well before they reach the surface of the sun. This diagram should be corrected or removed. Jim1138 (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


I quote myself again: BTW, the drawing of the thermodynamic system was made and put here by Libb Thims and is a copyright violation of my drawing in the paper "Life on Earth - flow of Energy and Entropy": http://www.digital-recordings.com/publ/publife.html I never gave him permission to do so. Also he changed the temperatures involved (why ?). So drawing does not make any scientific sense at this moment. It should be replaced with figure No.1 and No.2 from my paper. One can also use just figure No.1 and indicate temperatures which are on figure No.2
Best regards, Dr.Marek Roland, Canada http://www.digital-recordings.com/publ/publife.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.117.167 (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
And here is a short history of my diagram and copyright violation: http://www.eoht.info/page/Earth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.117.167 (talk • contribs)


Do you want to upload your images and make them public domain? You can request that users cite you, but that often does not happen. Use the Wikimedia commons upload wizard Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


I have no problem that my original images No1 and No.2 will be used here instead of a wrong and copyright-violating image. If you could do this Jim1138 I will apreciate since I am not familiar with the process. You can upload images from my publication - link is given here. Please also restore a link to my paper. Dr.Marek Roland, Canada http://www.digital-recordings.com/publ/publife.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.117.167 (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


It would be best if you uploaded the file. You need to be the one to declare your work public domain, not I. The upload wizard link provides an easy method to upload. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


Here are the files which could be used in this article:

Add caption here
Add caption here

Dr.Marek Roland, Canada http://www.digital-recordings.com/publ/publife.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Marek Roland (talk • contribs) 21:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


Fig.1. The Biosphere absorbs "Hot" Photons from the Sun and emits "Cold" Photons at longer wavelengths. Energy and entropy flow from the Sun is equivalent to the total energy and entropy flow from "Circle of Life".


Fig.2. Three Thermodynamic Subsystems Sun, Biosphere and Universe. The Biosphere extracts negative entropy in the process of exchanging "Hot" Photons (Black Body radiation at T= 5800 K) to "Cold" Photons (Black Body radiation at T = 280 K). This process is responsible for the mysterious "Life Force" which seems to defy II Law of Thermodynamics.


Thank you for your contribution. The first diagram uses "cold photons" in an idiosyncratic way (the term is associated with cosmic background radiation and Compton scattering). Your use of "Circle of Life" is also idiosyncratic (and for some reason labels a chord on the circle). The second diagram has the same problem with "cold photons". I don't believe these diagrams will be useful for anything other than illustrating your paper and are not appropriate for inclusion in this article. GaramondLethe 02:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


These labels can be removed / edited out if one wishes. In figure captions these short-hand terms were fully explained. BTW,"Hot" Photons and "Cold" Photons terms were used, not as you imply "Hot Photons" and "Cold Photons". And this is a big difference. I do not see any problems with use of these short-hand terms. It is a technique often used in language to simplify later sentences / text. And I have done it for this purpose in mind. Scientifically these diagrams make sense and are the original work proceeding any other. Current diagram is not correct and is a violation of copyrights, being a poorly-thought and unauthorized copy of my drawings. Dr.Marek Roland, Canada


Dr Roland, I believe you inadvertently removed my previous reply when you added text to your above response. Please take care to only modify what you're adding and not the existing comments of others. GaramondLethe 07:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


If this happened, it was simply problem with Wikipedia - 2 edits at the same time. Dr.Marek Roland, Canada

Should this page even be here?

Entropy (in its thermodynamic sense, the one which is implied in most discussions about entropy and life) doesn't really have a whole lot to do with life, or at least any more than the Schrodinger equation. It isn't obvious that life is more or less "organized" than any other part of the universe. Sure, it is important to understand free energies in metabolism (albeit under standard conditions), but the carefully measured associated entropies are not what people are referring to when thinking about entropy and life.

I don't know how I would design a machine that would look for negentropy which Lovelock's (referenceless) quote refers to.

I think the talk.origins FAQ expresses this view clearly: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html

i.e. there really isn't anything to resolve between entropy and life, nor does entropy provide any sort of meaningful insight on life (superficially, I understand the importance of molecular dynamics simulations).

I can find conflicting interpretations of Schrodinger's use of the word negentropy in What Is Life (AFAICT he says clearly that he means "[Gibbs] free energy", as he elaborates in Notes on Chapter 6). Schrodinger is no doubt a smarter physicist than I could ever hope to be, but I feel like he is only describing thermodynamics here (change in entropy as the "spreading out" of energy in some space) nothing specific to biology. Maneesh (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that scientifically there is no problem with evolution and life; however, this "argument" has appeared enough (usually raised by those with no scientific background whatsoever) that it has become notable.Prebys (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed on both counts - the 'entropy as a descriptor of life' argument occurs so frequently that it deserves its own page, and yet is irrelevant and inapplicable to begin with. The second law is a *macroscopic* statement of *equilibrium* for *isolated* systems, none of which apply to cellular machinery. I added an Objections sections to get these concerns stated, feel free to expand as necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.122.162.45 (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

http://pi.physik.uni-bonn.de/~cristinz/thesis/t/node7.html is 404. Perhaps somebody here knows of a replacement? Alexeicolin (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Entropy_and_life/Archive_1&oldid=1141536126"