Novel Idea on the Origin of Life

[jedishrfu]

Novel idea on the origin of life based on a system self organizing to dissipate energy as efficiently as possible:

http://www.businessinsider.com/physicist-has-a-groundbreaking-idea-about-why-life-exists-2016-1?amp

 

[DrClaude]

There was already a (short) thread concerning that paper:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/a-new-thermodynamic-theory-of-life.734211/#post-4637763

 

[russ_watters]

This sounds overmathed to me, based on two dubious starting assumptions. To put a finer point on it: humans are terribly inefficient users of energy - and so what?

 

[zoobyshoe]

humans are terribly inefficient users of energy

You mean the human body?

 

[russ_watters]

You mean the human body?

Yes, them too.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes, them too.

OK. I'm baffled by your post. In the sense that, I don't understand what you were trying to say.

 

[russ_watters]

OK. I'm baffled by your post. In the sense that, I don't understand what you were trying to say.

To be perfectly frank, I'm not sure what to do with that. Sorry.

 

[zoobyshoe]

This sounds overmathed to me,

What does "overmathed" mean?

based on two dubious starting assumptions.

Which are?

To put a finer point on it: humans are terribly inefficient users of energy -

Wouldn't that fact support the theory?

and so what?

"So what?' that humans are terribly inefficient users of energy, or "so what?" to the whole theory?[/QUOTE]

 

[DaveC426913]

To put a finer point on it: humans are terribly inefficient users of energy - and so what?

Isn't that the point behind the article?

You say "users of energy", but that concentrates on the useful portion - as in: getting something done. If life turns potential chemical energy into waste heat, yet accomplishes very little in the process, that's actually a pretty good entropy generator, is it not?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Isn't that the point behind the article?

You say "users of energy", but that concentrates on the useful portion - as in: getting something done. If life turns potential chemical energy into waste heat, yet accomplishes very little in the process, that's actually a pretty good entropy generator, is it not?

Yes, that's the way I read the article as well.

 

[russ_watters]

What does "overmathed" mean?

You can use math to say anything, but that doesn't mean the math is meaningful. I think this person did a lot of math that led to a conclusion that doesn't have anything to do with reality because it was never based in reality to begin with.

Which are?

The two points that came next:

Wouldn't that fact support the theory?

No: the premise was that life seeks efficiency. Humans are highly evolved and terribly inefficient, nearly the opposite of his assumption.

"So what?' that humans are terribly inefficient users of energy, or "so what?" to the whole theory?

"So what?" as in why does he think that efficient use of energy has anything to do with anything. He seems to be pulling both of those premises out of thin air and they appear completely unconnected with reality to me.

 

[DaveC426913]

Look at a hypothetical 30,000 foot scenario of human action.

A young, molten Earth cools until its surface crusts over, and its internal heat and volatile gasses leech out somewhat slowly after that. Humans show up and crack the surface, churning up the underbelly, exposing heat and gasses to the surface where they can be lost much more rapidly than any non-living process.

 

[DaveC426913]

why does he think that efficient use of energy has anything to do with anything.

Does he mean efficient use of energy, or efficient dissipation of energy?

 

[russ_watters]

Isn't that the point behind the article?

You say "users of energy", but that concentrates on the useful portion - as in: getting something done. If life turns potential chemical energy into waste heat, yet accomplishes very little in the process, that's actually a pretty good entropy generator, is it not?
[separate post]
Does he mean efficient use of energy, or efficient dissipation of energy?

I found the wording of the article confusing and maybe that's part of the issue here, but the way I see it, it doesn't work either way. Life is neither an efficient way to use energy or an efficient way to dissipate (waste) energy. [edit] And I see no reason why life should be driven by either.

 

[zoobyshoe]

You can use math to say anything, but that doesn't mean the math is meaningful. I think this person did a lot of math that led to a conclusion that doesn't have anything to do with reality because it was never based in reality to begin with.

OK. I agree that's perfectly possible.

The two points that came next:

No: the premise was that life seeks efficiency. Humans are highly evolved and terribly inefficient, nearly the opposite of his assumption.

"So what?" as in why does he think that efficient use of energy has anything to do with anything. He seems to be pulling both of those premises out of thin air and they appear completely unconnected with reality to me.

I think you concentrated on "efficiency" too much and missed the point about life being efficient at wasting energy, that is: at not using it efficiently. In other words, he's proposing that things adopt particular arrangements in order to be less efficient.

 

[DaveC426913]

I found the wording of the article confusing and maybe that's part of the issue here

Agreed. Which forces us to try to read between the lines.

Life is neither an efficient way to use energy or an efficient way to dissipate (waste) energy. [edit]

Well, as opposed to what? Is non-life better at either of those things? Kind of hard to say, and the article is not a lot of help there.

And I see no reason why life should be driven by either.

Agreed. Not sure how he links it to an evolutionary driver.

 

[DaveC426913]

This might be a case of the article poorly representing the proposal. The scientist might not have skipped over quite so many steps in the logic.

 

[russ_watters]

I think you concentrated on "efficiency" too much and missed the point about life being efficient at wasting energy, that is: at not using it efficiently. In other words, he's proposing that things adopt particular arrangements in order to be less efficient.

Well, as opposed to what? Is non-life better at either of those things?

Life is not effective at either. From the (news) article.

...when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that, under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.

“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England said.

So, a plant's "key physical attribute" is turning sunlight into waste heat -- and it is good at that? You know what's better at it? A rock.

 

[DaveC426913]

Life is not effective at either. From the (news) article.

So, a plant's "key physical attribute" is turning sunlight into waste heat -- and it is good at that? You know what's better at it? A rock.

Yeah. I'd like him to spell that out a little better.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Life is not effective at either. From the (news) article.

So, a plant's "key physical attribute" is turning sunlight into waste heat -- and it is good at that? You know what's better at it? A rock.

His contention is that physics says it isn't:

From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat.

 

[russ_watters]

His contention is that physics says it isn't:

He's flat out wrong. Energy turning into waste heat is something that happens on its own. Thermodynamics is the science/engineering of getting in the way of that.

 

[DaveC426913]

"...much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat..."

This quote makes a lot more sense if you consider stored chemical energy.

 

[russ_watters]

This quote makes a lot more sense if you consider stored chemical energy.

What stored chemical energy? The energy stored by plants from sunlight? He specifically cited the sun as such a primary energy source. Another would be a waterfall. These things instantly turn all of the energy they provide into lower grade waste heat. A plant stores the solar energy as chemical energy, thereby not turning it into waste heat. It does exactly the opposite of what he says it should be doing. A hydroelectric dam captures the energy of the waterfall and allows us to use it for other things before it finally gets released as waste heat (unless we also store it as another form of energy).

 

[russ_watters]

What does "overmathed" mean?

I've invented another new term for this: philosomath.

 

[DaveC426913]

His contention is that physics says it isn't:

What stored chemical energy? The energy stored by plants from sunlight? He specifically cited the sun as such a primary energy source. Another would be a waterfall. These things instantly turn all of the energy they provide into lower grade waste heat. A plant stores the solar energy as chemical energy, thereby not turning it into waste heat. It does exactly the opposite of what he says it should be doing. A hydroelectric dam captures the energy of the waterfall and allows us to use it for other things before it finally gets released as waste heat (unless we also store it as another form of energy).

No. I mean using solar energy to drive the engine that extracts useful chemical potential energy from the environment and turns it into such things as CO₂.

(OK well, nevermind the fact that plants also produce oxygen, which is used in lots of other ways, but still...)

 

[russ_watters]

No. I mean using solar energy to drive the engine that extracts useful chemical potential energy from the environment and turns it into such things as CO₂.

I'm not following -- as far as I know, plants extract solar energy from the environment and only use chemicals as raw materials for storing that energy. I don't see how that connects to what you quoted.

 

[zoobyshoe]

A plant stores the solar energy as chemical energy, thereby not turning it into waste heat. It does exactly the opposite of what he says it should be doing.

I think, though I'm not sure, that his answer to your objection would be that the amount of energy that gets stored in the plant is very much less than the amount that has been received and shed by it in the process of storing what it stores. Consider your body temperature at this moment: how much energy have you expended to maintain that temperature (you're constantly shedding heat, after all)? Some very small part of the work the environment has done on you is stored in your mass, but most of it has been shed by you in the various ways people dissipate energy.

His contention is that your body does that better than a rock: it absorbs more and sheds more. I have no idea if that's true, but, since rocks don't have to eat, or do anything in particular to remain rocks, it wouldn't surprise me that animate things use more energy than inanimate ones.

 

[collinsmark]

Perhaps what we should consider is a thought experiment:

Consider two terrariums. Each terrarium is square with a side of 10 km, and some arbitrary height. Both terrariums are isolated from their respective surroundings, however: Both are allowed equal amounts of sunlight energy per day. And both are allowed equal amounts of heat energy per day to escape.

One terrarium is filled with soil, water, air, bacteria, trees, daisies, bees, wombats and llamas (including some dead trees, dead bees, dead wombats, etc). The other terrarium is filled with only rocks, air and water.

Over the course of 2000 years (long enough time period to account for trees' longevity, rotting time, etc., over several generations) which terrarium is warmer?

[Edit: I didn't specify whether light energy (such as escaping, reflected sunlight) was the same thing as heat energy. I suspect the distinction is paramount to the correct answer. Suppose we say that reflected, escaping sunlight counts as escaping heat energy. What's the answer in that case? And if reflected sunlight does not count toward escaping heat energy, what's the answer then?]

[Second edit: And as a corollary, which terrarium is better at converting the sunlight's relatively high frequency photons -- peak intensity around the green part of the visible spectrum -- to lower frequency photons such as infrared and below? (You may consider reflected light when answering.)]

 

[collinsmark]

As a followup to my last post, it may be useful to consider that from a quantum perspective, a set of ten 5000 nm photons is associated with more entropy than a set of one 500 nm photon, even though both sets have the same energy.

Ignoring reflections, when a rock absorbs and radiates energy it does so in a pretty predicable fashion. In the morning, when a rocks are exposed to sunlight, a black rock will absorb more sunlight and heat up quicker than a grey rock. But after dusk, that black rock will emit electromagnetic radiation more quickly than the grey rock and thus cool down more quickly. (Black bodies not only absorb energy at a higher rate, but they also emit energy at a higher rate).

But can we say the same about the ficus tree? It's not quite so simple. It's more complicated for the ficus tree because in the daytime, some of that sunlight changes the tree's chemistry rather than heating it up, and in the nighttime the tree might emit energy from continued chemical reactions instead of simply cooling down. Ficus trees don't fully apply to black body radiation models.

So going back to our thought experiment, consider the energy exiting each terrarium system. Even if the total energy exiting each system is identical on average, is there a difference in the average photon wavelengths? Does that play a part in all of this*?

*Specifically, how that relates to entropy leaving each system.

 

[zoobyshoe]

So, you have two bank accounts. Every day the same amount is deposited in each, and every day the same amount is withdrawn from each. Assuming the withdrawals equal the deposits, both accounts end up with whatever they had when you started. So, whichever was warmer when you started will be the warmer when you end.

England, though, is saying one system could change to both receive and pay out more than the other. In other words: a proper gedanken can't limit what the "bio" area takes in and puts out, because that pre-emptively prevents the very thing he claims will happen: greater intake and exhaust. One of his contentions is that living things replicate so that yet more energy can be taken in and shed. So, you also couldn't contain the "bio" area, because that would prevent the inhabitants from replicating beyond a certain point. The gedanken has to be designed so that both terrariums are allowed to take in and exhaust as much energy as they "want" and to expand their area if they need to. I think the 2000 year result is obvious.

 

[collinsmark]

So, you have two bank accounts. Every day the same amount is deposited in each, and every day the same amount is withdrawn from each. Assuming the withdrawals equal the deposits, both accounts end up with whatever they had when you started. So, whichever was warmer when you started will be the warmer when you end.

England, though, is saying one system could change to both receive and pay out more than the other. In other words: a proper gedanken can't limit what the "bio" area takes in and puts out, because that pre-emptively prevents the very thing he claims will happen: greater intake and exhaust. One of his contentions is that living things replicate so that yet more energy can be taken in and shed. So, you also couldn't contain the "bio" area, because that would prevent the inhabitants from replicating beyond a certain point. The gedanken has to be designed so that both terrariums are allowed to take in and exhaust as much energy as they "want" and to expand their area if they need to. I think the 2000 year result is obvious.

I agree with your point.

What I left to the reader in my first post, I'll answer here. In the specific case where each terrarium receives the same total energy (from sunlight) per day, and each terrarium also emits the same total energy per day (whether that be by reflected sunlight, or by heat, or by any other means), the temperature of two terrariums will remain equal. The first law of thermodynamics guarantees that. So we're both in agreement there.

But what I alluded to in my first post and prodded a bit more in my second post is the difference between classical and quantum versions of entropy. We need to consider not only the energy leaving each system, but the entropy leaving each system. Let's use the bank account analogy.

I like your bank account analogy, by the way!

In classical thermodynamics, there is no differentiation when it comes to subdivisions of energy. Two half divisions of energy is the same as one whole division of energy as far as entropy goes. In classical thermodynamics, energy never comes in discrete chunks so it's all the same. Quantum entropy takes each chunk into account. That said, let's go back to the bank account.

Suppose I have two bank accounts (and for the sake of argument, suppose the bank accounts are from different banks). Every day I deposit a $1000 American dollar bill in each bank account. Also every day I withdraw $1000 dollars from each bank account, but in different denominations:

Bank account A: I withdraw ten, $100 bills per day.
Bank account B: I withdraw one hundred, $10 bills per day.​

It's obvious that both bank accounts are maintaining the same balance. But which bank is producing the most entropy?

(Classical thermodynamics cannot distinguish between the two. But quantum versions of entropy [accepting the limitations of the analogy] might.)

 

[zoobyshoe]

But which bank is producing the most entropy?

The one dishing out more notes of smaller denomination?

 

[collinsmark]

The one dishing out more notes of smaller denomination?

I believe so.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I have to confess I like England's idea for purely emotional, non-scientific reasons. If life could be irrefutably demonstrated to arise this way, it would pretty much shut creationism down and stop a lot of useless debating. So, I'm prone to approach it with a confirmation bias and try to pry things that might support it out of anything around.

That being the case, it's probably good Russ has cast some sobering aspersions on it. I watched some parts of his lecture and it seems the link between the physical systems he's studying and anything that's alive is extremely tenuous. I suspect he's being over-encouraged by people with the same biases as mine.

 

[collinsmark]

I have to confess I like England's idea for purely emotional, non-scientific reasons. If life could be irrefutably demonstrated to arise this way, it would pretty much shut creationism down and stop a lot of useless debating. So, I'm prone to approach it with a confirmation bias and try to pry things that might support it out of anything around.

Perhaps I might have a confirmation bias myself.

For quite some time now I've argued that self replicating patterns spontaneously emerging from chaotic systems, whether they be snowflakes, vorticies in eddy currents, etc., not only do not violate the second law of thermodynamics, they demand it! If you change the system to remove the greater entropy production, such as shutting off the flow of energy, the patterns themselves cease to form (and may even cease to exist). If one removes all temperature/energy density differentials, one doesn't get the snowflakes or vorticies (or humans* ultimately, in a more generalized sense).

So what England is claiming, to me, seems quite reasonable. Am I biased? Maybe. But the ideas in England's paper do not come as a surprise to me.

*[Edit: it may help to think of a human, not as being a fixed collection of matter, but rather as a pattern that maintains itself as matter and energy flow through it -- if you remove the flow of energy through the human, its "pattern" (itself) loses the ability to maintain itself.]

 

[mfb]

"...much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat..."

This quote makes a lot more sense if you consider stored chemical energy.

The most efficient process that converts chemical energy to heat is a fire. It is orders of magnitude faster and produces more heat.

Addy Pross' "dynamic kinetic stability" is a related idea, but it sounds much more reasonable I think.

If life could be irrefutably demonstrated to arise this way,

It cannot. Otherwise life would have to exist literally everywhere where sunlight and some matter is. It does not.

 

[russ_watters]

I have to confess I like England's idea for purely emotional, non-scientific reasons. If life could be irrefutably demonstrated to arise this way, it would pretty much shut creationism down and stop a lot of useless debating.

Emotional/non-scientific? Irrefutably demonstrated? Debate? Creationism? These concepts don't seem to me to belong in the same thought process. There is no creationism debate in scientific communities and religiously-bent people don't accept scientific (mathematical) "demonstrations". Nothing about this paper can change any of that.

 

[zoobyshoe]

For quite some time now I've argued that self replicating patterns spontaneously emerging from chaotic systems, whether they be snowflakes, vorticies in eddy currents, etc., not only do not violate the second law of thermodynamics, they demand it! If you change the system to remove the greater entropy production, such as shutting off the flow of energy, the patterns themselves cease to form (and may even cease to exist). If one removes all temperature/energy density differentials, one doesn't get the snowflakes or vorticies (or humans* ultimately, in a more generalized sense).

So, what I'm hearing you say is that there is some claim made by some party that "self replicating patterns spontaneously emerging from chaotic systems" do violate the second law?

 

[collinsmark]

So, what I'm hearing you say is that there is some claim made by some party that "self replicating patterns spontaneously emerging from chaotic systems" do violate the second law?

Yes. In the past, it has been claimed by some parties that snowflakes prove the existence of God since snowflakes "obviously violate the second law of thermodynamics."

Of course, that's all rubbish.

Not only does snowflake formation not violate the second law, the phenomenon described by the second law is paramount to the why the snowflakes formed in the first place. They wouldn't have formed without it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It cannot. Otherwise life would have to exist literally everywhere where sunlight and some matter is.

I'm not sure this is the case. It would be true that matter would adopt a structure that best produces entropy anywhere there is sunlight and matter, but for the jump from that to life would require the additional parameters of an environment that can support life.

His argument, as far as I understand it, is that structure is what separates a bunch of chemicals from life, and since this dynamic he is studying automatically creates structure by default in it's pursuit of more entropy, it might possibly also, if you stretch enough, be what's responsible for the structure that allows life to arise where before there was only inanimate chemicals. It should go without saying (in my mind) that this would only actually lead to life in an environment that can support life.

Opining here: It's a very appealing idea: 'life happens because there's really no alternative'. That's vastly preferable to, 'Life requires an unbelievably rare, anomalous event whose probability of occurrence is once every billion years.' When I first read about Englund a couple years ago I was exited about his coming "experiments" because I thought that meant he was working on a way to actually create life in the lab. I'm disappointed because it looks like he's not even close to conceiving of such an experiment.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes. In the past, it has been claimed by some parties that snowflakes prove the existence of God since snowflakes "obviously violate the second law of thermodynamics."

Of course, that's all rubbish.

Not only does snowflake formation not violate the second law, the phenomenon described by the second law is paramount to the why the snowflakes formed in the first place. They wouldn't have formed without it.

OK, you mean crackpots.

In my ignorance, maybe, your ideas sound pretty mainstream to me. I'm wondering if you've encountered friction from any mainstream source.

 

[zoobyshoe]

...religiously-bent people don't accept scientific (mathematical) "demonstrations". Nothing about this paper can change any of that.

Not this paper, correct. Like I said to mfb, I have been hoping for a lab demonstration of life created from scratch.

I have read creationists saying things to the effect that science has never been able to create life in the lab and never will. That such a thing would "kill" creationism is overoptimistic, but it would help.

 

[collinsmark]

OK, you mean crackpots.

In my ignorance, maybe, your ideas sound pretty mainstream to me. I'm wondering if you've encountered friction from any mainstream source.

Yes, mostly crackpots.

But in the process I learned quite a bit more about entropy.

When most people think of entropy increase they think of well ordered, well organized states deteriorating into less ordered, less organized states. While many times (most of the time?) those ideas hold true, it's not the whole picture.

If we consider where the energy is initially and where it ultimately goes, and what form the energy takes and consider all the macrostates and microstates of the matter we started with and ended with, sometimes a lower higher entropy configuration (considering the entire system) is one that produces well organized and ordered structures (sometimes extremely well organized). Crystal formation, repeated vortecies in turbulent fluids and snowflake formation are three such examples of this.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes, mostly crackpots.

But in the process I learned quite a bit more about entropy.

When most people think of entropy increase they think of well ordered, well organized states deteriorating into less ordered, less organized states. While many times (most of the time?) those ideas hold true, it's not the whole picture.

If we consider where the energy is initially and where it ultimately goes, and what form the energy takes and consider all the macrostates and microstates of the matter we started with and ended with, sometimes a lower higher entropy configuration (considering the entire system) is one that produces well organized and ordered structures (sometimes extremely well organized). Crystal formation, repeated vortecies in turbulent fluids and snowflake formation are three such examples of this.

OK. That's what I thought: this is mainstream. I was sure I'd run into it before. (I think it might have been both in Gleik's Chaos, and in a thread here years ago.) It's also pretty straightforward, IMO.

England's specific field of study seems to be molecular systems that restructure in order to respond better to driving forces (EM radiation) so they can receive and shed the energy better. The alternative being, I guess, they'd heat up. They seem to be seeking that structure that gets them as close to resonance as they can get to avoid elevated temperatures (pardon the anthropomorphisms).

Thanks for the video: pretty clear!

 

[Buzz Bloom]

Novel idea on the origin of life based on a system self organizing to dissipate energy as efficiently as possible:

Hi jedishrfu:

The news story you cited about Jeremy England seems to have two parts which I paraphrase (as best I can) below.
1. A sort of extension of thermodynamics (a fourth law?) which says that: GIVEN a system with (a) a free energy source, and (b) a collection of stuff which inherently has the possibility of a configuration which reduces the rate of increase of entropy by the growth of the orderly structure of this configuration, THEN this growth will take place.
2. Such a system will continue to grow with increasing complexity until eventually life forms.
England goes on to say that "luck" is not needed for this to happen.

As I understand what I have read about biogenesis

(e.g., Vital Dust: Life as a Cosmic Imperative (1996) ISBN 0-465-09045-1)​

there are bottlenecks in the process. I have also read about several suggestions that our relatively over-sized moon may have played an important role in getting past such a bottleneck. It seem reasonable that if the moon played such a role, the fact that such a moon exists would be a bit of luck.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[Feeble Wonk]

Hi jedishrfu:

The news story you cited about Jeremy England seems to have two parts which I paraphrase (as best I can) below.
1. A sort of extension of thermodynamics (a fourth law?) which says that: GIVEN a system with (a) a free energy source, and (b) a collection of stuff which inherently has the possibility of a configuration which reduces the rate of increase of entropy by the growth of the orderly structure of this configuration, THEN this growth will take place.
2. Such a system will continue to grow with increasing complexity until eventually life forms.
England goes on to say that "luck" is not needed for this to happen.

This basic concept has already been relatively well established as a general physical principle. Any "isolated system" that has an EXTERNAL source of energy will tend to self-organize into higher order structure.

As I understand what I have read about biogenesis

(e.g., Vital Dust: Life as a Cosmic Imperative (1996) ISBN 0-465-09045-1)​

there are bottlenecks in the process.

Christian de Duve is one of my favorite authors. I've got his earlier work. It's a great read too.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465090451/?tag=pfamazon01-20
But the bottle necks simply impact the direction of evolutionary changes. The general process of self-organization should theoretically continue regardless of such events.

 

[DaveC426913]

This basic concept has already been relatively well established as a general physical principle. Any "isolated system" that has an EXTERNAL source of energy will tend to self-organize into higher order structure.

That is an intriguing principle. I have never heard it put that way before. Can you cite a reference?

 

[Feeble Wonk]

That is an intriguing principle. I have never heard it put that way before. Can you cite a reference?

Let me see what I can find. I know I've read about it again just recently in a book by Lee Smolin.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0544245598/?tag=pfamazon01-20

He was discussing this concept during a section covering physical systems that tend to behave in ways that are anti-thermodynamic (with decreasing entropy)... such as gravitationally bound systems.

 

[collinsmark]

He was discussing this concept during a section covering physical systems that tend to behave in ways that are anti-thermodynamic (with decreasing entropy)... such as gravitationally bound systems.

Eeek, don't say that. Gravitationally bound systems do not decrease in entropy. Even though they "clump up" so to speak, it does not mean that the overall entropy decreases. It doesn't. When dust and whatnot collapses into a star or planet or whatnot, entropy increases (overall, when taking the entire system into consideration). Clumping, in and of itself -- particularly in regards to gravitational collapse -- does not equate to lower entropy. It's quite the reverse.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

That is an intriguing principle. I have never heard it put that way before. Can you cite a reference?

Hi Dave:

I vaguely remember reading about a laboratory demonstration by an Italian (physicist or chemist?) I think sometime between 1960 and 1990. I apologize that I can't remember it more clearly.

Regards,
Buzz