Is the 2nd law actually violated in this experiment?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ray b
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    2nd law Law
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around an experiment that allegedly demonstrates a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, particularly in the context of short time frames and small systems. Participants explore the implications of this experiment, its interpretation, and the validity of the claims made in various sources.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the validity of the time frame used in the experiment, suggesting that random chance or Brownian motion may explain the results.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about the theoretical conclusions drawn by Dennis Evans, noting potential experimental artifacts that could affect the analysis.
  • Another participant agrees that the Second Law is likely safe but doubts that any retraction or correction of the findings will occur, citing common misrepresentations in scientific reporting.
  • A participant raises a conceptual point about the possibility of parts of a system moving toward order while the overall system trends toward disorder, questioning the completeness of the definitions used in the experiment.
  • One post claims that the experiment contradicts the Second Law, asserting that it has significant implications for chemical and physical processes at small scales.
  • Another participant discusses the Fluctuation Theorem, suggesting that violations of the Second Law may be more probable in small systems and over short time scales, but affirming that the law holds true at larger scales.
  • There is a suggestion that the experiment may be an attempt to replicate molecular dynamics or Monte Carlo simulations, with a focus on measuring acoustic relaxation times in a specific setup.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of skepticism and support regarding the claims of the experiment. There is no consensus on whether the Second Law is violated, with some arguing for its validity and others suggesting that the findings may be misrepresented or misunderstood.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential limitations in the experimental design and the interpretation of results, including the dependence on definitions and the scale of the systems being studied. There is also mention of unresolved mathematical or theoretical aspects related to the Fluctuation Theorem.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying thermodynamics, experimental physics, or the implications of entropy in small systems, as well as individuals curious about the intersection of theory and experimental results in physics.

ray b
Messages
181
Reaction score
0
Last edited:
Science news on Phys.org
Dennis Evans does NOT leap to wild conclusions; that said, his forte is the theoretical, and "there's many a slip twixt the cup and lip" --- or, twixt the theoretical result and the lab bench. The pdf is barely legible on my screen --- the BBC "science desk" butcher job description of the experiment leaves a lot to be desired, but it's a fairly decent bet that experimental artifacts have been missed in the analysis/correlation of theory and experiment. Stay tuned for critique of the paper --- provided I survive the eyestrain --- holidays and all, it'll be mid-Jan before I get my hands on P. Rev..

Bottom line? The theoreticians strike again --- the only thing on this Earth more dangerous than "a second lieutenant with a map" (pre-GPS joke for all you technos out there) is a theoretician with a test tube. The Second Law is safe --- you'll see a retraction or correction within a year --- most probably based on an analysis of the experimental design --- the "unmixing" of cake mixes has been studied to death, and this looks very much like an alternate demonstration of "unmixing" phenomena.
 
Originally posted by Bystander
The Second Law is safe --- you'll see a retraction or correction within a year...
I agree with the first part but not the second part. My gut tells me that the article misrepresented (overstated/misunderstood) the findings of the experiment. That happens all the time and is NEVER retracted.
 
It is my understanding that parts of a system can go toward order, so long as the net movement is toward disorder. Is my understanding flawed?

Maybe they have defined their system without the inclusion of outside energy?

Nautica
 
The 2nd Law: "Beads of doubt"

One of the most important principles of physics, that disorder, or entropy, always increases, has been shown to be untrue.


This result has profound consequences for any chemical or physical process that occurs over short times and in small regions.

ANU team
Scientists at the Australian National University (ANU) have carried out an experiment involving lasers and microscopic beads that disobeys the so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics, something many scientists had considered impossible.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2135779.stm
 
you missed a bit!

Your posting caught my eye, so I read the link... But you missed out the important bit:


This Second Law of Thermodynamics says that the disorder of the Universe can only increase in time, but the equations of classical and quantum mechanics, the laws that govern the behaviour of the very small, are time reversible.

A few years ago, a tentative theoretical solution to this paradox was proposed - the so-called Fluctuation Theorem - stating that the chances of the Second Law being violated increases as the system in question gets smaller.

This means that at human scales, the Second Law dominates and machines only ever run in one direction. However, when working at molecular scales and over extremely short periods of time, things can take place in either direction.

Now, scientists have demonstrated that principle experimentally.




So no change then, the 2nd law remains true above the scale of the very very small. Four gas molecules in a box CAN all move to the same side of the box still, but 1 mole of gas molecules won't.
 
Could someone please move/lock/append this to the earlier post in Class. Phys., "2nd law exception?"
 
The experiment looks to be an attempt to reproduce molecular dynamic or monte carlo results on the benchtop; the actual apparatus design is a very low power acoustic/vibration damper. What has actually been measured is the acoustic relaxation time of a suspended sediment.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 152 ·
6
Replies
152
Views
12K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
9K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
13K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
507K