From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: sci.skeptic FAQ version 0.2.
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:50:17 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Aug31.175817.15105@newshost.lanl.gov>, jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes...

I wrote:

>|> I guess it depends on what you mean by "observed."  To me it means that you
>|> intend to do an experiment, where you set up some initial conditions and
>|> watch the time evolution of the system.  In this situation, there will
>|> undoubtedly be some experiments in which all the particles run into one
>|> corner of the box.  The final state is more ordered than the initial state.
> 
>In what way is the final state `more ordered'?  They're all in the 
>same corner, but conservation laws require that the energy density 
>be higher.  The pressure is locally higher there as well.  The `order' 

You *really* need to study some physics.  All the microstates available
to the particles in the box have exactly the same energy.  I have no 
idea what "conservation law" you are refering to here.

>of the system is not clearly changed: up *or* down.  Further, in what
>way is this a `final state'?  Unless you *confine* the particles there,
>it is an intermediate, non-equilibrium state (this is actually irrelevant,
>but you maintain below that it is not so).  Finally, as the main

You don't understand what "equilibrium" means in statistical physics.
Imagine putting your box in contact with the traditional heat bath.
"Equilibrium" refers to the partition of energy between your system
and the heat bath - not to any particular microstate of the box at the
equilibrium energy (or temperature).   There is no single "equilibrium"
configuration in the sense you are trying to use it.  

>The term `order' is not part of the *thermodynamic* definition of
>the second law nor of entropy.  In statistical mechanics (a related
>but different field), the *definition* of entropy is in terms of the

Statistical mechanics is the entire modern basis of classical thermodynamics.
I'm not sure how different that makes it.  But let's not pick nits.

[...some stuff deleted]

>No, the reason that the second law doesn't prohibit evolution is that
>the word `order' (which is used to evoke the apparent conflict) is 
>irrelevant to the thermodynamic concept.  In statistical mechanics, 
>a *much* better term would be `diversity', as in "systems approach 
>maximum diversity of available energy states."  Interestingly, this 
>is also part of what evolution predicts: "mutation increases the 
>genetic diversity of a species."

You don't need to coin new lingo to explain the physics.  Order is most
definitely an appropriate concept when dealing with entropy.  The statement
"closed systems tend to a more disordered state" can be made precise with the
language of stat mech, creationist misuse of the phrase notwithstanding.

-Scott

--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins