What is the connection between Maxwell's Demon and Liouville's Theorem?

In summary, the argument makes no reference to the size of the air molecules, and assumes that the demon himself can be neglected.
  • #1
AdrianMay
121
4
Hi Folks,

(Skip to next paragraph if you already know what M's D is.) Maxwell's demon was a counterargument to the second law of thermodynamics (and hence the first) involving two chambers of air connected by a trap door which this demon would open and close to let fast molecules go one way and slow ones the other. One chamber gets hotter and can perpetually drive a heat engine.

The catch apparently lies in the assumption that the demon himself can be neglected but in reality one has to consider the entropy associated with his decision. But this argument makes no reference to the size of the air molecules.

What if they were whopping great cannonballs? Can one still claim that the energetic equivalent of whatever bits he has to erase in his head is comparable with the power station you could drive that way? How do we even make the comparison between energy and entropy here?

Now that I think about it, I don't really understand why it would have been a problem in the first place. If I milk kinetic energy out of either chamber, all the cannonballs are going to slow down eventually. But they did teach me in school that breaking the second law was tantamount to breaking the first.

Confused,
Adrian.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Another problem with the "erasing bits in his head" argument is that it doesn't mention the temperatures involved, or how fussy he is. The number of bits he has to erase is independent of whether he sets his threshold at 100^C or 1000^C. But surely the entropy reduction is different in the two cases.
 
  • #3
You have to erase the bits to ensure the process is cyclic- your end state is the same as the initial state.
 
  • #4
I know I have to erase the bits, but I don't see how that problem can compare with an entropy reduction that seems to be in totally different units.
 
  • #5
AdrianMay said:
Hi Folks,

(Skip to next paragraph if you already know what M's D is.) Maxwell's demon was a counterargument to the second law of thermodynamics (and hence the first) involving two chambers of air connected by a trap door which this demon would open and close to let fast molecules go one way and slow ones the other. One chamber gets hotter and can perpetually drive a heat engine.

The catch apparently lies in the assumption that the demon himself can be neglected but in reality one has to consider the entropy associated with his decision. But this argument makes no reference to the size of the air molecules.

What if they were whopping great cannonballs? Can one still claim that the energetic equivalent of whatever bits he has to erase in his head is comparable with the power station you could drive that way? How do we even make the comparison between energy and entropy here?

Now that I think about it, I don't really understand why it would have been a problem in the first place. If I milk kinetic energy out of either chamber, all the cannonballs are going to slow down eventually. But they did teach me in school that breaking the second law was tantamount to breaking the first.

Confused,
Adrian.

I think this is a good question, and I don't know the answer (yet). A few points though - if you have a gas of cannonballs, say they have a mass of 1 kilogram each, and let's assume they collide elastically with each other, so that their internal thermodynamics doesn't matter, then their kinetic energy will be 3kT/2=mv^2/2 where v is their velocity, m is their mass, T is their temperature. If the cannonballs are moving at an average velocity of 1 meter per second, then their temperature will be T=mv^2/3k = 2.4 x 10^22 Kelvin.

Also, entropy is "missing information" and may be different for different people. If person A knows only the temperature, pressure, volume, etc of a gas, then A will calculate some entropy for that gas, but if person B knows the position and velocity (speaking classically, now) of every particle in that gas, then they will say there is no entropy. Person A will write the second law of thermodynamics as dU=TdS-PdV+µdN (µ is chemical potential, you have to include that when possibly changing the number of particles). Person B will write the second law as [itex]dU=\sum m_iv_i^2/2[/itex] where the index i runs over all particles. It won't be the second law, really, it will be a mechanical equation.

I guess I don't understand how the energy expended by the demon can compare to the energy of one "hot" cannonball being allowed to pass through the door. The demon can use photons to determine the position and energy of a cannonball, but the energy used is negligible compared to the cannonball. Same goes for the energy needed for the demon to record the information. Can we say the energy required to open and shut the door is negligible?

So this means that energy is flowing from one side to the other. The entropy of the system may be increasing, but the temperature of demon's process is way lower than the temperature of the cannonballs.
 
  • #6
AdrianMay said:
What if they were whopping great cannonballs? Can one still claim that the energetic equivalent of whatever bits he has to erase in his head is comparable with the power station you could drive that way? How do we even make the comparison between energy and entropy here?

There are two ways to make the comparison. The first is to associate entropy with the transfer of information: in this case, the information associated with measuring the velocity of a cannonball and deciding to open a door (or not). Shannon was the first (AFAIK) to work out that the transfer of 1 bit of information is equivalent to kT ln(2) units of energy, or a change in entropy of k ln(2).

Alternatively, there is the information required to specify the microstate itself- this has been worked out in terms of algorithms, and the most straightforward definition is the Kolmogorov complexity. The two measures are somewhat related (for example, the amount of information required to transmit instructions for constructing a power plant is related to the information required to actually construct the power plant), but Shannon's result is better understood and is the basis for several data compression algorithms.

Your example of a gas of cannonballs a very interesting one (especially if gravity is not important)- defining the temperature of such a gas is not so obvious: see, for example, the hard-sphere phase transition. The transition between fluid and crystal occurs at a particular volume fraction- not the conventional sense of temperature. In terms of thermodynamics, the entropy of a gas of cannonballs will also depend on the volume fraction.
 
  • #7
If the cannonballs are moving at an average velocity of 1 meter per second, then their temperature will be T=mv^2/3k = 2.4 x 10^22 Kelvin.
...

I guess I don't understand how the energy expended by the demon can compare to the energy of one "hot" cannonball being allowed to pass through the door. The demon can use photons to determine the position and energy of a cannonball, but the energy used is negligible compared to the cannonball. Same goes for the energy needed for the demon to record the information. Can we say the energy required to open and shut the door is negligible?

Using your result for temperature.
The demon has to measure the speed of the cannonball by absorption of photons as you suggest, these are now high energy photons coming from a source of 2.4 x 10^22 Kelvin, which surely will increase the demon's temperature greatly is he is tiny enough to not have an energy expenditure of appreciable value when opening or closing the door. So the question is then how many cannonballs can the demon measure and let through the door before his own temperature rises to that of the cannonballs.
I don't think size of "molecules" matters for Maxwell's demon.
 
  • #8
256bits said:
Using your result for temperature.
The demon has to measure the speed of the cannonball by absorption of photons as you suggest, these are now high energy photons coming from a source of 2.4 x 10^22 Kelvin, which surely will increase the demon's temperature greatly is he is tiny enough to not have an energy expenditure of appreciable value when opening or closing the door. So the question is then how many cannonballs can the demon measure and let through the door before his own temperature rises to that of the cannonballs.
I don't think size of "molecules" matters for Maxwell's demon.

The demon does not need high energy photons. If the "molecules" are cannonballs, a flashlight will be overkill, and still will not appreciably affect the energy or momentum of the cannonballs. The demon is not tiny now, a human size demon will be fine. Note that the cannonballs are not hot to the touch of the human size demon. A basic assumption is that the cannonballs collide perfectly elastically which means it doesn't matter what their conventional temperature is. The thermodynamic temperature of the "cannonball gas" is such that each degree of freedom holds energy kT/2 and if they have mass 1 kg and average speed 1m/sec, that gives 2x10^22 Kelvin. Let's assume they are so far apart that the total volume of the cannonballs is much smaller than the volume that contains them. A volume of 10^33 cubic meters will give about a mole of cannonballs that will be about a kilometer apart, on average. That volume amounts to a cube a million kilometers on a side, about the distance from the Earth to the sun. This cannonball gas has enough cannonballs to be treated as a thermodynamic system. Now we have essentially an ideal gas of cannonballs. The density is about 2.4 x 10^-10 cannonballs per cubic meter. The pressure is about 8x10^-11 pascal. A person who knows only the pressure, temperature, and volume, for example, will assign an entropy to this system, the ideal gas entropy (Sackur-Tetrode, to within a constant, I guess).

Notice that the demon knows more than the temperature, pressure, and volume. The demon knows the position and momentum of the cannonballs in his vicinity. (They are big enough to be treated classically).

I don't think the size of the molecules matters either - which is why we should be able to prove that the second law is not violated for a human demon and a gas of cannonballs undergoing perfectly elastic collisions.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Oh dear. I seem to have put the cat among the pigeons. Can we escalate this one? E.g. to Stephen Hawking or somebody like that ;-)

I think 256bits must be on to something with the temperature of the cannonballs thing. Real cannonballs would probably heat up as they bounced around, taking energy out of the translational modes. We'd better include rotation as well. If we said there were no other modes but translation, then I think we'd be talking about a quantum system which might be a totally different ball game (scuse the pun) and if we approximated the collisions to perfectly elastic I think we'd just be agreeing to wait a very long time but not talking about perpetual motion or equilibrium. So let's take the case where the energy spreads out over all modes that a real cannonball has and see if we still have a problem.

I think we do though because I can reduce the rate at which the demon gets sunbathed just by shrinking him and then I only need a very small fridge to keep him cool. I'm expecting to milk significant energy out of this contraption and I reckon I can spare that much for the fridge.

Using Rap's numbers as an example, can anybody figure out how much energy we can harvest if we naively ignore the bits in the demon's head? I'm so clueless about thermodynamics that it still looks like zero to me, which means I don't understand why breaking the 2nd law means breaking the 1st or what was so demonic about this trapdoor in the first place.
 
  • #10
We should deal with the simplest situation possible that keeps the problem alive. Cannonballs colliding inelastically is a needless complication, it means the system is out of equilibrium - the cannonballs have an internal temperature and a "cannonball gas temperature" and they are vastly different. Equilibrium occurs when the two temperatures are the same - i.e. the cannonballs are practically motionless and have absorbed all the kinetic energy they used to have and that energy is now heat energy. When talking about entropy, you have to include the "internal entropies" of the cannonballs and the "cannonball gas entropy", etc. etc. Huge complication for the demon to keep track of. Do we really want to worry about Maxwell's demon in a non-equilibrium situation when the problem does not demand non-equilibrium? No.

We can forget about angular momentum too. Elastic collisions will impart no rotational energy to any cannonball during a collision, either from an off-center hit or from a rotating cannonball transferring rotational energy to another cannonball. Just as the internal temperature of a cannonball is irrelevant, so is its rotational energy.

Elastically colliding cannonballs are like a simple monatomic ideal gas, and Maxwells demon should give the same results in both cases. The problem is kept alive - what happens if you go to a "cannonball gas"? The bits that the demon will have to record will simply be the positions and momenta of the cannonballs, he won't have to worry about the internal entropy bits of the cannonballs, the rotation of the cannonballs, etc. Much simpler, and I don't think we will require quantum mechanics to resolve the issue.

I'm not very good at Maxwell's demon, there must be something missing. Is it that the demon is required to be at the same temperature as the gas he is manipulating? If that is the case, then if you multiply the information entropy of those recorded bits times kT where T=10^22 or whatever, you get a very big energy, on the order of a cannonball's kinetic energy, and that plus the photon energy he used to measure the cannonballs may be more than the energy "generated" by the demon. I don't know.

Also, violating the second law does not mean you violate the first. The second law is being violated all the time by small fluctuations, the first law, classically never. Its only in the "thermodynamic limit" of an infinite number of particles that the second law holds exactly.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
The elastic case is clearly simpler, but I'm worried that it might be too soft on me, i.e., make it too easy for me to make this case that the "bits-in-the-head" argument is dodgy. Perhaps if we get a full blown paradox in the elastic case, the solution is that perfect elasticity isn't achievable in practice.

Not in theory either if the balls have non-zero diameter. That follows from relativity - there has to be a wave in the ball to tell the back face to change direction, and that wave can't go at infinite speed, so it's going to bounce around and dissipate as heat.

Put it this way: it would be more satisfying to me to make my case fly in the inelastic case than just to get away with it in the idealised case.

As for rotation, you might be right that rotating modes won't get stimulated if the balls are *oily*, but if you're prepared to overlook the relativity argument, then we could also speak of perfect elasticity in the case that their surfaces have an enormous coefficient of static friction and therefore won't grind against each other. In that case, I think balls glancing off each other would end up rotating. I don't mind having oily balls though.

I'm not entirely convinced that the temperature of the demon is relevant. I reckon 1 bit of information is just that. Is it really applicable to take equations like dU = TdS ... which originally came from huge statistical systems like gases and apply them to single bits. I'd like to hear a more mechanical argument that a bit really really has to use TdS of energy when you erase it.

I also have my doubts about this 10^22 Kelvin. That would seem to imply that if I use 1kg balls of something inelastic like plasticine starting at absolute zero, then let all the KE turn to heat just by watching them all go splat, then they should reach this wild temperature. But in reality they only seem to heat up a few tenths of a degree or so. Perhaps the bug in the calculation is that pdV wasn't mentioned.
 
  • #12
Listen to Rap, he's making good sense. The first case to understand is the purely elastic case, because we should be able to account for that situation. Also, we do not want to make the Demon be the same T as the cannonballs, indeed it will be crucial that the Demon either not have a T associated with him at all, or else have a much lower T associated with him than the cannonballs have. Finally, the energy per "cannonball" is indeed very much like their temperature here, so if we have a counterintuitive case to understand, it is the case where the "Demon" is generating a huge T difference across the "door" by using what would seem to be a relatively small number of decisions.

First let me say there must not be anything "dodgy" about the "erasing bits" argument, even in the case of cannonballs and high T-- that argument must hit the nail on the head even in that situation, so this is what we need to understand. I would say the first thing we should do is distinguish the first and second laws-- the first merely being conservation of energy, the second counting entropy. What seems "paradoxical" here is that if the Demon can take a gas that is everywhere the same (very large) T, and make some decisions about a door, he can generate a huge T difference, which could then run a heat engine and do work, in a way that looks completely cyclic so sounds like it could be repeated over and over. This does not yield any problems with the first law, because energy is still being conserved-- if the heat engine does work, the cannonballs lose energy, and since nothing replaces that energy, there is no connection here to a perpetual motion machine. Perpetual motion machines are not power generators, they are simply machines that don't run down on their own, and that brings in the second law.

So the real issue here is with the second law-- clearly a huge T difference has lower entropy than the original state of a huge T that is the same on both sides. So how did the Demon achieve that with just a few decisions? If we have cannonballs, we have the same number of decisions, but a much larger T difference, so isn't that a contradiction or paradox?

No, it's fine. We just need to understand the connection between T and entropy. The first thing to do is get rid of the ridiculous units here-- we multiply T by k and divide S by k, so now S is S/k and means the natural log of the number of configurations N that are in the class associated with S, and T is kT and should be interepreted as the energy scale of changes that affect S/k. Specifically, an energy change of kT corresponds to augmenting S/k by one, which also corresponds to "one binary decision" about opening or closing the door. So you immediately see the key issue here-- if each cannonball has a huge energy, then one decision about the door automatically has a big effect on the energy difference, but not a huge effect on the entropy decrease! One decision by the Demon is always 1 unit of entropy lost in the gas, via the T difference it creates, regardless of the energy per cannonball. At any T, one decision corresponds to kT of energy added to the higher-T gas, which always lowers the entropy by 1, even if T is huge.

So in other words, we do not magnify the entropy consequences of the Demon's decisions simply by magnifying the energy of the cannonballs-- that is not the connection between entropy and energy. If there is already a huge energy per cannonball, than the entropy is "less impressed" by big energy shifts involving opening and closing the door. Either way, one bit in the head of the Demon is one kT of energy that is getting added to the high-T, high-S gas and removed from the low-T, low-S gas, and that always results in a net decrease in S/k of 1. But of course it also results in a net increase in the S/k in the Demon, so there is no issue, and you need to ignore (or "erase") that entropy increase in the Demon to get the "paradox."

So the bottom line is, the "paradox" stems from not understanding the fact that when the energy scale is magnified, the entropy consequences are not-- because at higher energy, each "decision" corresponds to more energy, but at higher T, more energy is needed to have the same impact on the entropy. The bottom line is, in thermodynamics, the Demon does not have "intention" or "purpose" that motivates his actions-- he is just another "dumb gas" that will only do what he does if it results in a net increase in entropy in the total Demon+gas system. He does what he does because it is a more likely configuration of the whole system, that's "intention" in themodynamics. And there is no issue with extracting work from the gas-- if you have access to an entropy-generating mechanism (like a brain), you can use it to drop the entropy somewhere else, and extract work in a way that conserves energy overall. This just means that brains are even more important to have in situations where there is access to high temperature, because each decision by the brain has a relatively larger energy consequence, which is also why you need good brains with their "fingers on the button" if you see what I mean!
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Thanks Ken, you seem to have got this pointing in the right direction, but I have one last misconception.

I already mentioned the question of how fussy the demon is. Where in the probability distribution of temperature per molecule does he set his threshold for opening the door? Can we really say that the entropy decrease of the gas per decision is independent of the threshold, and/or can we say that the entropy value of the bits in his head are independent of the threshold? I'd be tempted to say nO and yES respectively, which would resuscitate the problem.

I still haven't really understood this energy-entropy connection. Let's just banish k by an appropriate choice of units, as Einstein banished c and QM people banish h and so on.

Are you saying that one bit is just one bit of negentropy = ln(2), irrespective of any temperature? I think so. I think you'd only care about T if you cared about energy, which you already said was irrelevant because I can't make a power station out of this anyway.

But the threshold does affect the number of phonons being moved over the divide in each decision. That's the point right? We're talking about the number of ways we can distribute a known number of phonons over a known (but inconstant) number of modes. If we can sort a lot of phonons in one go then we've made a big difference to the number of ways the whole system can be arranged. So the earlier nO seems supported.

How about the yES?
 
  • #14
Ken G said:
...And there is no issue with extracting work from the gas-- if you have access to an entropy-generating mechanism (like a brain), you can use it to drop the entropy somewhere else, and extract work in a way that conserves energy overall...

So the bottom line is that yes, Maxwell's demon can take a high-entropy situation (like two containers of gas at the same temperature) and turn it into a low-entropy situation (the two containers have different temperatures). The first law is not violated - the total energy of the gas in the two containers is the same before and after. The second law is not violated - the lowered entropy of the two gases is more than offset by the increased entropy of the demon.

The lowered entropy (different temperatures) of the two gases can now be used to run an engine for a little while, until the temperatures are equal again (but lower than before). Then the demon can lower the entropy again, getting different temperatures again, which can then run the engine again for a little while (not delivering as much energy as before, because of lower temperatures). This could go on and on, but you could never get that engine to produce more energy than the amount of kinetic energy in the original gases.

The thing about the cannonball gas is only that there is a lot of energy there to be converted (the cannonball-gas temperature is so huge and there's a mole of cannonballs).

Is this right?
 
  • #15
Here's a completely different point: Bennet's take is that the Demon has to erase a bit when he forgets what he observed, which means setting a bit (that might have had any value) to a distinct value, which means lowering entropy and thus using energy. That's supposed to help. But now that Ken has unravelled energy and entropy it seems more like a hindrance.

The demon doesn't have to erase any bits.

He stores the bit by letting the molecule through!

Oops: wasn't there a change of sign somewhere? I think so. I say the demon picks up negentropy from the chamber he observes and dumps it in the one behind the door. He doesn't need much RAM and his entropy is steady. Simple. Bennet's take is considerably more convoluted and I think he sneaks in a change of sign by using the very law that's under attack - the 2nd.

Surely the demon was always maintaining a steady state - nobody ever asked him to store any internal state.

It's multiply circular to argue that the demon might be in danger of acquiring a long memory when he never needed to, then to say that he has to take precautions against that, and that the precautions would seem to reduce entropy (although the danger would have reduced entropy as well) and then to blithely assume that the second law dictates some energy requirement when the second law is the very thing under attack by the paradox we are trying to solve.

Whatever thermodynamic arguments are raised for claiming that the demon has to use energy, increase entropy or whatever, it should be possible to ground them in mechanistic, Newtonian style physics. Otherwise, there's a lot of danger of circularity.
 
  • #16
Rap said:
The thing about the cannonball gas is only that there is a lot of energy there to be converted (the cannonball-gas temperature is so huge and there's a mole of cannonballs).

Is this right?
Yes, that's how I see it as well.
 
  • #17
AdrianMay said:
I already mentioned the question of how fussy the demon is. Where in the probability distribution of temperature per molecule does he set his threshold for opening the door? Can we really say that the entropy decrease of the gas per decision is independent of the threshold, and/or can we say that the entropy value of the bits in his head are independent of the threshold? I'd be tempted to say nO and yES respectively, which would resuscitate the problem.
I think your idea of looking at different thresholds is digging deeper into the details of the situation, but should not encounter any paradoxes. The Demon must increase entropy in the process of thinking and processing the information, and that allows the entropy in the gas to drop, and still have a net result that will actually occur spontaneously (the Demon has to function spontaneously here, it is ruled by thermodynamics also). But this doesn't mean that we know how much the net entropy will increase per decision-- that's what depends on the threshold and all the other details of the decisionmaking process. Thermodynamics doesn't tell us how human thought occurs, for example, we don't understand why my writing this, instead of something else, represents the largest possible increase in entropy. But if one takes the thermo perspective, that is the reason I am writing this. So even though we don't understand why the Demon sets the threshold where it does, we can calculate the decrease in entropy that occurs in the gas per decision. I'm not sure we really have a good model of what a "decision" actually is, but the main point is that once we get a model of that, the entropy consequences don't depend on the overall scale of the T of the gas (whether atom or cannonball), because what T effects is the conversion from the entropy scale to the energy scale, not the entropy scale itself (entropy scales like E/T, so cannonballs or atoms work the same for entropy). That's why decisions are more important when the energy scale is larger, but the entropy of a decision is more or less always the same (depending on how we are modeling what a "decision" actually is). Hence every decision you make has the potential to change your life, it all depends on how that decision interacts with other scales that don't relate to entropy.
 
  • #18
Ken G said:
Yes, that's how I see it as well.

Me too, but what about:

is more than offset by the increased entropy of the demon
 
  • #19
AdrianMay said:
Surely the demon was always maintaining a steady state - nobody ever asked him to store any internal state.
I don't think whether or not the Demon has a good memory is all that important for the entropy, unless you invoke more complex rules about "decisions" that involve memory. What is mostly important about the Demon is that it be an entropy generating machine, preferably at as low an effective temperature as possible (so you don't have to feed it so much to get it to make decisions). We can have the Demon be in a steady state, but we have to account for some kind of environment (with a low effective temperature) that it can be increasing the entropy of as it "thinks." If that environment is the gas itself, then its temperature is too high to get the Demon to function, and we won't be able to get the gas to decrease its entropy if we keep track of everything happening. That I think is the source of the "paradox"-- we are ignoring the need for the Demon to have access to its own environment, and the environment has to be something different from the gas for this to work. The one thing you can "take to the bank" is that the action of the Demon's decisions increase the entropy in total-- they are never "more than offset" by anything the gas is doing. Increasing the T of the gas does not create such an offset, it only increases E and T but not E/T, i.e., not the entropy decrease in the gas per action by the Demon.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
Ken G said:
I don't think whether or not the Demon has a good memory is all that important for the entropy, unless you invoke more complex rules about "decisions" that involve memory. What is mostly important about the Demon is that it be an entropy generating machine, preferably at as low an effective temperature as possible (so you don't have to feed it so much to get it to make decisions). We can have the Demon be in a steady state, but we have to account for some kind of environment (with a low effective temperature) that it can be increasing the entropy of as it "thinks." If that environment is the gas itself, then its temperature is too high to get the Demon to function, and we won't be able to get the gas to decrease its entropy if we keep track of everything happening. That I think is the source of the "paradox"-- we are ignoring the need for the Demon to have access to its own environment, and the environment has to be something different from the gas for this to work. The one thing you can "take to the bank" is that the action of the Demon's decisions increase the entropy in total-- they are never "more than offset" by anything the gas is doing. Increasing the T of the gas does not create such an offset, it only increases E and T but not E/T, i.e., not the entropy decrease in the gas per action by the Demon.

If the demon is moving low energy particles to one side of the partition between the two systems initially in equilibrium, then the demon is lowering the total entropy of the two systems. In order for the second law to hold, the combined entropy of the two systems and the demon must increase. What I meant was that the entropy decrease of the two systems is more than offset by the entropy increase of and by the demon. Now I am trying to figure out how the demon's entropy unavoidably increases. Part of it is that the measurement process increases entropy. In the case of the cannonball gas, shooting photons out to measure position and momenta of the cannonballs, I think. The other part is the modifications of the state of the demon as a result of these measurements. Thats the part that has me thinking right now.
 
  • #21
Yes, the Demon must increase entropy when it decides to open or close the door. Exactly how that happens I'm not that clear on, my comments were around trying to remove the idea that the energy of the particles mattered. I think the basic idea can be understood if we imagine a situation where you have a bunch of coins on a floor that can shake. First you shake the coins and get, let's say, 50 heads and 50 tails. You register which ones are which, and glue down all the heads, and shake the floor again. It's clear that eventually you will have all heads, so the entropy of the coins is decreasing. That has to be made up by the entropy associated with noticing which ones are heads and which are tails. I think that "noticing" part must mean that a bit in the brain in effect substitutes for the bit normally associated with the coin, such that the coin can be glued down, "removing" that bit from the entropy, without decreasing the total entropy because that bit is now in the head that decided to glue the coin down. In a sense a copy of the information has been made, in order to make the decision, so regardless of what decision is made, that copy retains any lost entropy.
 
  • #22
I think we're all in about the same place now. We agree that:

* The first law was never in danger, even if the second law was, because we can just look at all the balls on the level of kinetic energy.
* We only use temperature in dU=TdS, but if we're not attacking the 1st law we don't even need that equation, it's all about the entropy alone.
* Cannonballs and molecules are about the same thing because of the above
* We'll try to fix the paradox in the elastic case first. (I'd suggest considering inelastic complications if that fails.)
* The usual strategy for rescuing the 2nd law is to say that the demon's entropy increases, but none of us seems to know how or why.

Do you both agree that we all agree with the above?

I think that if we say that the demon is in a steady state, then by definition we'd have said that his entropy is constant and ruled out the standard rescue, so we'd better be careful about calling him a steady state, but frankly I don't see why I can't say that.

My fussiness argument from before didn't make sense though. Even if you only let the top percentile through (as opposed to the top 50% as usually imagined) then you are still making one decision per molecule. So on average, each decision sorts as many phonons as there are phonons on the average molecule, which is given by the temperature.

I think another possible strategy would be to show that he succeeds in decreasing the entropy of the whole system including himself, but only if he receives energy from outside with which to do work. That would be legal because the entropy increase occurs wherever he got the energy from. Then the temperature would be relevant because the work he has to do is TdS if he's planning on reducing entropy by dS. It would not be fair to put the cart before the horse and say that he must do work because the 2nd law says so, which I think is what Charles Bennet's argument sneaks into the soup somewhere around the bit erasure stage. I think the real purpose of Bennet's argument is to show that erasing a bit costs kT.ln(2) of energy assuming the 2nd law applies to Maxwell's demon. I don't think it was intended to rescue the 2nd law by throwing in a new axiom about erasure.

I emailed him BTW, but that might have been inappropriate. How would something like this typically escalate in a professional way? Letter to a journal or something?
 
  • #23
Ken G said:
I think the basic idea can be understood if we imagine a situation where you have a bunch of coins on a floor that can shake. First you shake the coins and get, let's say, 50 heads and 50 tails. You register which ones are which, and glue down all the heads, and shake the floor again. It's clear that eventually you will have all heads, so the entropy of the coins is decreasing. That has to be made up by the entropy associated with noticing which ones are heads and which are tails. I think that "noticing" part must mean that a bit in the brain in effect substitutes for the bit normally associated with the coin, such that the coin can be glued down, "removing" that bit from the entropy, without decreasing the total entropy because that bit is now in the head that decided to glue the coin down. In a sense a copy of the information has been made, in order to make the decision, so regardless of what decision is made, that copy retains any lost entropy.

I have no idea where I am going with this. I have been reading http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0210005v2 on Landauer's principle.

If a demon has 10 unglued coins, shakes the table, then before the demon looks at the coins, he describes the situation using entropy - 10 bits of entropy or 10 bits of missing information. Once he looks at them, he says zero entropy, and 10 bits of information in the demon's head. No uncertainty, no missing info, no entropy. The demon glues down all the heads (say 6 of them), shakes the table again. Before he looks, 10-6=4 bits of entropy, after he looks, none. If he remembers the original configuration, he now has 14 bits in his head. If he forgets the original configuration, he has 4 bits in his head, but by Landauer's principle, "forgetting" creates entropy, so those forgotten 10 bits are now demon entropy in the form of heat.

Suppose of those four, 2 were heads, 2 tails, so its now 8 heads, 2 tails. If he forgets the original configuration, its just 10 bits in his head. This goes on and on until there are 10 heads, zero coin entropy as far as the demon is concerned. If he is forgetful, he will have 10 bits in his head, all heads. If not, he will have something like 10+5+2.5+...=20 bits on average. So if he forgets, there will be 10 bits in his head and 10 bits of forgotten (heat) entropy.

To a scientist outside, who just measures the number of heads and the number of tails, not which are heads and which are tails (analogous to thermodynamic measurements, not knowing everything), he sees 6h,4t and then 8h,2t, etc. and he says coin entropy is decreasing. He is treating the coins as indistinguishable, while the demon is treating them as distinguishable, so their idea of entropy is different. To the scientist, 6h,4t has an entropy of H(6h,4t)=log2(B(10,6)), where B(a,b) is the binomial coefficient a!/b!/(a-b)!. That's about H(6h,4t)=7.7 bits. The scientist, looking at 8h,2t, says that's an entropy of H(8h,2t)=5.5 bits. He says coin entropy is decreasing.

As the scientist watches things, the entropy goes to zero - H(10h,0t)=0. He wants to know what happens to (his idea of) the entropy of the demon during this process.

When there are 6h,4t, the scientist will say there are 7.7 bits of coin entropy, and 7.7 bits of entropy the demon forgot and turned into heat for a total of 15.4 bits of entropy. When it goes to 8h,2t, the scientist will say there are 5.5 bits of coin entropy, and the demon forgot a total of 7.7+H(2,2)=10.3 bits of entropy for a total entropy of 15.7. Total entropy is increasing. This is kind of artificial, 6h,4t and 2h,2t are close to what you would expect - 50% heads, 50% tails. If the ratios were much different, I guess you could get a decrease in entropy, but for large numbers, no. On average, after two trials, you should get 10+5=15 bits of entropy, or something.

When there are finally 10 heads, the scientist will say there is zero coin entropy. If the demon is forgetful, the scientist will know he has 10 bits in his head, all heads, so zero demon entropy and something like 10+5+2.5+...=20 bits of forgotten entropy. It looks like the second law is saved.

Maybe that distinguishable/indistinguishable thing was a needless complication.

LOL - this reminds me of the discussion we had on Schroedinger's cat.
 
  • #24
In the absence of a challenge to the 1st law, the demon is going to have to do without his air conditioner and reach, say, the average temperature of the two chambers.

But I'd dispute that this temperature has anything at all to do with his trapdoor. I reckon the position of the trapdoor is the only entropy or internal state that he needs. Most of the time there are no molecules around and he just sleeps. When a molecule comes along, he takes a decision and stores it by opening or closing the door. No other RAM or state is involved. When the molecule is through, he just leaves the door where it was and goes back to sleep. When the next molecule arrives, he sets the door accordingly, thus erasing the memory of the previous decision. So every time he adjusts the door, which is once per molecule, he goes from any of 2 possible states to a precise state, which reduces the entropy of the demon-door by ln(2). Not (I claim) T.ln(2). (Banishing k by appropriate choice of units.)

That would be generous, but I might also claim that flipping the trapdoor goes from one known state to one known state, both of which had entropy of ln(1)=0.

I think this is basic to the definition of entropy. All that stuff about T came in when hot gases were considered. The reason you need a factor of T there is that a molecule is not the interesting unit here, rather, the phonon is, and a molecule is basically a bus load of phonons. T measures how many phonons are on the bus (kind of.)

No such argument can be applied to the trapdoor. Maybe the trapdoor consists of a big warm protein molecule with a kink in the middle that easily flips this way or that, but hates to be in the middle. The whole molecule is stuffed with phonons reflecting the ambient temperature, but they're all on a leg that's flipped left or right. Either way, there are just as many available states, and the entropy is the same. For a different entropy value, you'd have to consider some quantum superposition of left and right, or a population of such molecules, such that you could somehow speak of a left-and-right or left-or-right state. That would be more disordered. But we never needed to propose a moment in time when we didn't know whether the trapdoor was open or closed, and I think we can flip back and forth without any entropic consequences. Open and closed are equally disordered, irrespective of temperature.

I hope somebody can shoot that argument down, because my universe is turning distinctly pear shaped and I'm losing sleep.
 
  • #25
AdrianMay said:
In the absence of a challenge to the 1st law, the demon is going to have to do without his air conditioner and reach, say, the average temperature of the two chambers.

If that is the case, then the entropy acquired by the demon will yield an energy of the order of the energy removed from one side and deposited in the other. I think this might cause the engine not to work.

But hey, if the demon knows which molecule will hit where, why not just sidestep a molecule coming at him? If we look at a human demon and a cannonball gas, the human can just step out of the way when he sees a cannonball coming at him at 1 meter/sec. If you have a problem with the energy he will expend, then go to a gas of aircraft carriers.
 
  • #26
The paper Rap found confirms it: you can't use information theory to rescue the 2nd law from the demon, rather, that stuff assumes that even the demon obeys the 2nd law.

That would seem to mean that the demon is still as scary as when Maxwell invented him. Perhaps we could actually make one.
 
  • #27
AdrianMay said:
The paper Rap found confirms it: you can't use information theory to rescue the 2nd law from the demon, rather, that stuff assumes that even the demon obeys the 2nd law.

That would seem to mean that the demon is still as scary as when Maxwell invented him. Perhaps we could actually make one.

I interpreted it to mean that you can make one, and the second law will not be violated.
 
  • #28
Rap said:
I interpreted it to mean that you can make one, and the second law will not be violated.

Not me. I think he's saying that if you look at it Maxwell's way and consider the 2nd law disproved, then none of that information theory stuff even exists. They do the information theory by assuming that the demon is sociable enough not to break the 2nd law, then they figure out exactly what he can and can't do within those rules. But there's still no argument to say he will follow the 2nd law unless you just faithfully believe that.

People then make the mistake of taking the results of information theory as proven no matter what, and using them to protect the 2nd law from the demon. But that would be circular. Bennet himself is acknowledging this circularity in the paper you found.
 
  • #29
I believe the assumption that the Demon obeys the second law is a natural one to make, in lieu of a good theory of how "thought" works. According to thermodynamics, thought, like any other process of a large system, is "spontaneous", which simply means it is ruled by the principle that more likely things happen and less likely things don't happen. That's the only assumption behind the second law. So I think any difficulty we have with the Demon is simply traced to two problems:
1) we don't have a good model for what a decision is, thermodynamically, though we do see some connection between information entropy and the ability to answer questions that cull out possibilities (so the entropy of the gas can be seen as related to the number of questions needed to cull out its actual state from the set of states that physics deals with when it talks about the behavior of a gas), and the mind that is doing the culling. For the culling to be done physically, like separating hot and cold components of gas, the action of the mind must fill in for, or make a "copy" of, the entropy that is being lost from the gas.
2) We aren't accounting for the environment in which the Demon functions. This is what leads to ideas like the Demon being in a "steady state" if he can forget the decisions he makes, but I don't think it matters what the Demon remembers, what matters is that a brain is also a system, and must function in an environment. That environment must gain entropy for the brain to function spontaneously-- you can't have the brain "getting lucky" when it follows a rule, you must program it to follow that rule, and that program must play out as the spontaneous response of some entropy-generating environment. That's what makes the program reliable in the first place.
 
  • #30
AdrianMay said:
Not me. I think he's saying that if you look at it Maxwell's way and consider the 2nd law disproved, then none of that information theory stuff even exists. They do the information theory by assuming that the demon is sociable enough not to break the 2nd law, then they figure out exactly what he can and can't do within those rules. But there's still no argument to say he will follow the 2nd law unless you just faithfully believe that.

I have to disagree with this. The information theoretic idea of the demon is not that he is "sociable enough" not to break the second law, it is that by acquiring and possibly forgetting the information needed to decide when to open the door, he is unavoidably acquiring enough entropy to offset the decrease in entropy he produces by selectively passing fast particles from one side of the partition to the other.

We have to make clear two scenarios by which the second law is saved:

1) Maxwell's demon succeeds in reducing the total entropy of the two gases by selectively moving fast particles into one chamber. The second law is saved by the increase in entropy of the demon.

2) Maxwell's demon fails to reduce the total entropy of the two gases. The second law is saved, but the entropy balance sheet is unclear to me.

I have read Earman and Norton, and the Bennett paper, but not with anything near complete understanding. As I presently understand it, Earman and Norton reject the information entropy defense of the second law, while Bennett supports it. Earman and Norton present two principles - Szilard's and Landauer's, as information-theoretic explanations of how the second law is not violated, and disputes both.

Szilard says there is an entropy cost in acquiring information. Bennett disputes this. Me, I don't know. Looking at the cannonball gas, the demon needs photons to measure the position and momenta of the cannonballs, and I haven't thought about the entropy considerations here. Earman and Norton point out that if you really have equilibrium in this cannonball gas, there will be Planckian radiation at the huge temperature of the cannonball gas, which is why you need high energy photons to measure their position. Now I understand where the idea that high energy photons are needed came from. This is a good point, the cannonball gas without photons is not in equilibrium, and Maxwell's demon is not operating on equlibrated gases.

Landauer says there is an entropy cost in erasing information. Bennett agrees, and says this saves the second law in the case of a forgetful Maxwell's demon. I accepted this in my analysis of KenG's "coin entropy" scenario. I tend to think this is true. If you forget information, then there is missing information, which is information entropy, which is thermodynamic entropy.

AdrianMay said:
People then make the mistake of taking the results of information theory as proven no matter what, and using them to protect the 2nd law from the demon. But that would be circular. Bennet himself is acknowledging this circularity in the paper you found.

I'm not sure what "results of information theory" you are referring to here.
 
  • #31
Rap said:
Now I understand where the idea that high energy photons are needed came from. This is a good point, the cannonball gas without photons is not in equilibrium, and Maxwell's demon is not operating on equlibrated gases.
I actually don't see that at as a good point, and I'm not sure those source aren't getting hung up on fairly irrelevant issues. The concept of equilibrium must be an effective, not literal, concept in physics-- we must be able to talk about equilibrium of what we care about, not necessarily equilibrium of everything. The second law is useless if we interpret it as a law that only applies in strict equilibrium, because no such situation exists anywhere. The patent office would have to reopen all the cases of perpetual motion machines that they refused to consider on the grounds that they violated the second law, if the inventor says "but my invention works in the corner of a room, where there is no strict thermodynamic equilibrium". The second law does not say that "entropy increases in strict thermodynamic equilibrium", because in strict equilibrium nothing changes, including entropy. Instead, the second law is about characterizing small deviations from equilibrium, and only in regard to whatever is the critical mode of behavior that is under study. For example, the universe is bathed in a very low-temperature neutrino bath, and no gas at normal temperature is in equilibrium with that. Saying that non-equilibrated photons in the cannonball gas invalidates the second law would be like saying that neutrinos always invalidate it. But actually this is only true in situations where the thermal neutrinos matter in some way, and it would only matter for the Demon and the cannonballs if thermal photons were somehow being used in the apparent entropy violation.

I don't know how those sources are arguing their points, but the summaries sound wholly unconvincing to me. I see the situation as much simpler than worrying about whether brains remember or forget, or whether they are or are not bathed in hot photons or hot neutrinos. It is simply that if you want to make a decision regarding some information, you have to be able to process that information, and information processing requires an environment. That environment will necessarily increase its entropy to at least "copy" the information being processed, and even then only if it is perfectly efficient. So the Demon will always generate more entropy than it destroys, and it will never matter whether the Demon is being bathed in photons or if it has a memory. Saying more probably requires having some specific model for how the Demon manages to "think", but much of the purpose of thermodynamics is being able to say things independently of the details of that kind of model, just as we don't have to talk about the mass of the cannonballs or how much they compress before they elastically rebound.
Landauer says there is an entropy cost in erasing information. Bennett agrees, and says this saves the second law in the case of a forgetful Maxwell's demon. I accepted this in my analysis of KenG's "coin entropy" scenario. I tend to think this is true. If you forget information, then there is missing information, which is information entropy, which is thermodynamic entropy.
Yes, I agree that one cannot get rid of entropy by forgetting. But what this says is that remembering or forgetting is irrelevant. One cannot argue the Demon is cyclic or in steady-state by letting it forget, because the entropy increase is in the Demon's environment, not its memory. One can treat the memory as part of the environment, but if forgetting occurs, then it's not the whole environment. All violations of the second law invariably boil down to not considering the whole environment, and I'd say that's just what is going on here.
 
  • #32
Ken G said:
I actually don't see that at as a good point, and I'm not sure those source aren't getting hung up on fairly irrelevant issues. The concept of equilibrium must be an effective, not literal, concept in physics-- we must be able to talk about equilibrium of what we care about, not necessarily equilibrium of everything.

Agreed - I didn't mean to imply that lack of equilibrium with the photons was deal-killing, only that it was something that needed to be thought about, and hopefully rejected. I tend to agree with you - it can be rejected.

Ken G said:
It is simply that if you want to make a decision regarding some information, you have to be able to process that information, and information processing requires an environment. That environment will necessarily increase its entropy to at least "copy" the information being processed, and even then only if it is perfectly efficient. So the Demon will always generate more entropy than it destroys, and it will never matter whether the Demon is being bathed in photons or if it has a memory.

You are assuming that information entropy and thermodynamic entropy are equivalent via Boltzmann's constant, which I agree with, but apparently others do not.

Ken G said:
Yes, I agree that one cannot get rid of entropy by forgetting. But what this says is that remembering or forgetting is irrelevant.

Yes.

But let me ask, just to be very clear - Do you think that a demon could successfully reduce the entropy of the two systems, with the idea that the second law is not violated due to the increase in entropy of the demon?
 
  • #33
Rap said:
You are assuming that information entropy and thermodynamic entropy are equivalent via Boltzmann's constant, which I agree with, but apparently others do not.
Yes, but to me that's the point of the Demon-- to show that they must be equivalent. Otherwise, we can substitute one for the other, and it's bye-bye second law. Perhaps those who don't see the equivalence don't think the second law is correct, but I'm not buying those wares. I hold that if one has a model for how the information is actually being processed, including the environment that is doing it, then the equivalence between information and thermodynamic entropy becomes clear-- it all boils down to the need for spontaneous results to be those which have a higher probability of occurring, and the sole reason they have a higher probability is that they represent larger entropy.
But let me ask, just to be very clear - Do you think that a demon could successfully reduce the entropy of the two systems, with the idea that the second law is not violated due to the increase in entropy of the demon?
Yes, the Demon can separate hot and cold gases, and it can do it by increasing the entropy even more in whatever environment the Demon uses for a brain, but the energy scale of the Demon can be vastly less than the energy scale of the gas. The latter would just mean that the Demon has a lower effective temperature. Hence the Demon cannot be born from the thermodynamic equilibrium it is disrupting, it needs some separate existence that must also be analyzed-- not treated like some magical process of intention, and not just some program and memory, but a whole thermodynamic environment of its own. But the Demon can be used to extract heat from a gas-- indeed there are many ways to do that, which violate neither the first nor second laws.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
OK let me quote from that paper.

First the top line: Bennet, 2011.

Then we have:

One of the main objections to Landauer’s principle,
and in my opinion the one of greatest merit, is that raised
by Earman and Norton [3], who argue that since it is not
independent of the Second Law, it is either unnecessary
or insufficient as an exorcism of Maxwell’s demon. I will
discuss this objection further in the third section.

So then we excitedly skip to the third section:

Earman and Norton have pointed out with some jus-
tice that Landauer’s principle appears both unnecessary
and insufficient as an exorcism Maxwell’s demon, be-
cause if the Demon is a thermodynamic system already
governed by the Second Law, no further supposition
about information and entropy is needed to save the
Second Law. On the other hand, if the Demon is not
assumed to obey the Second Law, no supposition about
the entropy cost of information processing can save the
Second Law from the Demon.
I would nevertheless argue that Landauer’s princi-
ple serves an important pedagogic purpose ...

That means he agrees. Pedagogic purposes are not logic.

You guys know me! Would I ever presume to question what a giant like Bennet says ?
 
  • #35
Ken G said:
Yes, the Demon can separate hot and cold gases, and it can do it by increasing the entropy even more in whatever environment the Demon uses for a brain, but the energy scale of the Demon can be vastly less than the energy scale of the gas.
One of the formulations of the second law is the amount of usable energy in the universe can only decrease. Usable energy is essentially the kind of energy that a low-entropy system has, and entropy is essentially a measure of what percentage of the universe's energy isn't usable. So if Maxwell's demon isn't expending that much energy, is he increasing the amount of usable energy in the universe?

To put it another way, can Maxwell's demon extract more usable energy than a Carnot engine? If we take the fumes coming out of the (ideal) combustion engine of a car, can we feed it into Maxwell's demon and get more energy out? (Let the molecules of the car fumes be cannonballs... It's a giant car, OK?)
 
Last edited:
<h2>1. What is Maxwell's Demon and Liouville's Theorem?</h2><p>Maxwell's Demon is a thought experiment proposed by physicist James Clerk Maxwell in 1867. It involves a hypothetical being that can selectively control the movement of particles in a closed system, seemingly violating the second law of thermodynamics. Liouville's Theorem, on the other hand, is a mathematical principle that states the volume of a given region in phase space is conserved over time in a closed system.</p><h2>2. What is the connection between Maxwell's Demon and Liouville's Theorem?</h2><p>The connection between Maxwell's Demon and Liouville's Theorem lies in the fact that both concepts deal with the behavior of particles in a closed system. Maxwell's Demon challenges the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy (disorder) in a closed system will always increase over time. Liouville's Theorem, on the other hand, provides a mathematical basis for this law by showing that the total volume in phase space, which represents all possible states of a system, remains constant over time.</p><h2>3. How does Maxwell's Demon relate to the second law of thermodynamics?</h2><p>Maxwell's Demon challenges the second law of thermodynamics by proposing a scenario in which a being can selectively control the movement of particles in a closed system, leading to a decrease in entropy (increase in order) over time. This goes against the idea that entropy always increases in a closed system, as stated by the second law.</p><h2>4. Can Maxwell's Demon be reconciled with Liouville's Theorem?</h2><p>No, Maxwell's Demon cannot be reconciled with Liouville's Theorem. While Maxwell's Demon challenges the second law of thermodynamics, Liouville's Theorem provides a mathematical basis for this law. The two concepts are incompatible and cannot coexist in a closed system.</p><h2>5. What are the implications of Maxwell's Demon and Liouville's Theorem in physics?</h2><p>Maxwell's Demon and Liouville's Theorem have significant implications in the field of physics. Maxwell's Demon challenges our understanding of the second law of thermodynamics and raises questions about the nature of entropy and order in closed systems. Liouville's Theorem, on the other hand, has practical applications in statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics, providing a mathematical foundation for the laws of thermodynamics.</p>

1. What is Maxwell's Demon and Liouville's Theorem?

Maxwell's Demon is a thought experiment proposed by physicist James Clerk Maxwell in 1867. It involves a hypothetical being that can selectively control the movement of particles in a closed system, seemingly violating the second law of thermodynamics. Liouville's Theorem, on the other hand, is a mathematical principle that states the volume of a given region in phase space is conserved over time in a closed system.

2. What is the connection between Maxwell's Demon and Liouville's Theorem?

The connection between Maxwell's Demon and Liouville's Theorem lies in the fact that both concepts deal with the behavior of particles in a closed system. Maxwell's Demon challenges the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy (disorder) in a closed system will always increase over time. Liouville's Theorem, on the other hand, provides a mathematical basis for this law by showing that the total volume in phase space, which represents all possible states of a system, remains constant over time.

3. How does Maxwell's Demon relate to the second law of thermodynamics?

Maxwell's Demon challenges the second law of thermodynamics by proposing a scenario in which a being can selectively control the movement of particles in a closed system, leading to a decrease in entropy (increase in order) over time. This goes against the idea that entropy always increases in a closed system, as stated by the second law.

4. Can Maxwell's Demon be reconciled with Liouville's Theorem?

No, Maxwell's Demon cannot be reconciled with Liouville's Theorem. While Maxwell's Demon challenges the second law of thermodynamics, Liouville's Theorem provides a mathematical basis for this law. The two concepts are incompatible and cannot coexist in a closed system.

5. What are the implications of Maxwell's Demon and Liouville's Theorem in physics?

Maxwell's Demon and Liouville's Theorem have significant implications in the field of physics. Maxwell's Demon challenges our understanding of the second law of thermodynamics and raises questions about the nature of entropy and order in closed systems. Liouville's Theorem, on the other hand, has practical applications in statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics, providing a mathematical foundation for the laws of thermodynamics.

Similar threads

  • Electromagnetism
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Electromagnetism
3
Replies
81
Views
17K
  • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
16
Views
536
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
23
Views
2K
Back
Top