Talk:Entropy/Archive 7

message: Hi, owing to the objections some have expressed in regards to entropy’s association with “disorder”, I have spent almost a month now adding over a dozen new references, uploaded 3 new images, adding new formulas, and added both the history and modern-day conceptions of how “order” and “disorder” are utilized in current science.  To be clear, there is no underlying motive or conspiracy here; these are well-established theories and methods of presentation.  Many of us have degrees in this field and do research on this topic.  Google search results clearly show that there are more than 12-million articles written with discussion on entropy, order, and disorder.  Thus, please, if you have some type of disagreement or objection to entropy being discussed and presented in terms of “disorder”, possibly based on some sort of entropy/creationism conflict or beginner chemistry issues, than discuss this somewhere else.  We are only here to present topic information, as it is, in an unbiased neutral point-of-view manner.  I certainly apologize if I have failed to present entropy in a crystal clear, easily discernable manner.  Yet, entropy itself, in the words of many scientist and authors, is one of the most puzzling concepts in all of science.  Thus, if, in our effort to facilitate topic understanding, we unintentionally result to bend phrasings and presentation styles, almost to the effect that we are assembling original presentations using our own personal conceptions, then we are in fact no longer on topic.  To highlight the subtle point I am digging at, in the words of the great Nobelist Gilbert Lewis, from the Oxford Dictionary of Scientific Quotations:Lewis, G. (1913). “Valence and Tautomerism”, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 35, 1448 
  
Thanks everyone for your help. Later: --Sadi Carnot 16:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've certainly done a lot to show cited use of "disorder", and I fully accept that the term is common. Of course, in your zeal you may have taken some citations out of context, as in the "Tanakhe" example, and I'd hope that this can be carefully checked. However, it's disappointing that you don't seem to have found a clear definition or explanation of these unusual meanings of order and disorder. As PAR rightly points out, disorder is an introductory term, and for that to work it's important that beginners should be able to understand it. Indeed, the terms seem to shift meanings within your explanation and, as the quote above says, lose all real significance. This contributes to an unfortunate impression that calling entropy "disorder" leads to a termination of thought, rather than looking for the underlying explanation in terms of energy. For example, the impression is given that the appearance of order in galaxies means low entropy, which has to be offset by more "disorder" being "created" elsewhere. I make no claims to expertise, but would have thought that the formation of galaxies under the influence of gravity involved an increase in entropy. Perhaps some expert can clarify this point. It'd also be interesting to know how an organism is to decay when isolated from energy – doesn't decay usually involve, eh, living organisms? ... dave souza, talk 09:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the "Tanakhe" example, I saw this first in a thermodynamics textbook yesterday, but then lost place of where I saw it; I'll track it down.  As for the new section I added, it's brand new and it's not easy to patch together a difficult topic on first pass.  Let's work together to clean and clarify it.  As for order and disorder in galactic-perspectives and biological evolutionary perspectives, this is a topic of current research, writing, and theorizing.  New books are being published almost yearly.  No one that I know of has been able to paint a crystal clear picture, yet many are working to paint small sections at a time.  As for black hole entropy, I have only read one or two books on this; I think it is still a big puzzle for many. --Sadi Carnot 08:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, we are getting closer to the truth here: "appearance of order" and its opposite number "appearance of disorder".  Appearance.  The truth is in that one word.  •Jim62sch• 10:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you mean? --Sadi Carnot 08:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ponder.  Let your intellect run unfettered.  Don't rely on textbooks.  Consider it a Gedenkenexperiment. •Jim62sch• 10:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sadi, I'm glad to see that you've trimmed the section considerably. As for order and disorder in galactic-perspectives and biological evolutionary perspectives, don't you think you should have a clearer understanding of what's going on before you add things to articles? It appears that your focus on "disorder" may be leading you astray – I've just had a look at your Entropy (order and disorder) section on Adiabatic demagnetization, and you seem to have completely misunderstood the process: while Magnetic refrigeration unfortunately also throws in the odd unexplained reference to disorder, it gives a much better explanation of the process, and you may wish to amend the "order and disorder" explanation accordingly. ... dave souza, talk 10:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My focus and attention on "order and disorder" is a result of you and Jim62 (who have evolution/creation-issues with it) and Frank Lambert (who has teaching and understandibility isses with it).  I'm sure if the three of you had your way you would delete it out of Wikipedia.  Myself, I really could care less about the order-disorder entropy perspective; I just don't like to see a mis-balanced perspective written in as well as seeing comments like “disorder is dead” when the predominant view argues otherwise.  As to my Adiabatic demagnetization contribution, you can discuss your issues with: Halliday, David, Resnick, Robert (1988). Fundamentals of Physics, 3rd Ed., because it is their example, and it seems perfectly clear to me.  Can't you guys cut me a break?  I've spent hours searching for and adding in examples, paragraphs, and diagrams just to appease your concerns.  Later: --Sadi Carnot 12:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. "(who have evolution/creation-issues with it)" - that's only a teensy-tiny part of it, in fact it's the last thing on the list of problems.  If that's all you've gotten out of what I've written about chaos and disorder, well...•Jim62sch• 21:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, Sadi, I'd hope you'll now cut other editors a break and try to work cooperatively on this article – for a start you can try to stop falsely attributing motives to other people, and try to assume good faith. It is to be hoped that we can now work together towards a clearer explanation of "disorder". As to your Adiabatic demagnetization contribution, try checking just what Halliday, David, Resnick, Robert wrote: they should surely realise that applying the magnetic field to material in the adiabatic enclosure will raise its temperature, so the subsequent removal of the magnetic field would merely bring it back to its initial temperature. While your effort is of course appreciated, please remember that you don't own the article and the important thing is to inform ordinary readers rather than enforcing your own perspective on entropy. ... dave souza, talk 16:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No-one's asking you to sit by: you're being asked to discuss things and work cooperatively rather than lashing out. If you've represented your book accurately, it gives a remarkably poor description: irrespective of whether or not the entropy involved is described as "disorder", when the entropy of the magnetised material is reduced its heat capacity is also reduced, and it heats up: a heat sink is needed to remove that surplus heat before it is insulated and the magnetic field relaxed for the second phase of the process. Next you'll be telling us that that a domestic fridge works by compressing and decompressing the refrigerant inside the insulated compartment! ... dave souza, talk 19:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave, don’t shoot the messenger.  I’m no expert on “ultra cold temperature” physics.  This is a build as we go encyclopedia; I started it as an example, possibly later I’ll find another book that clarifies further or maybe an expert will come along to add to the section.  That’s all I can add presently.  It looks correct to me.  Of course, it could be that both myself and the textbook are wrong, and you are right.  You’ve made your point and I’ll agree to keep my eyes open for other examples on this same topic.  Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 04:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth changing because as set out the refrigeration effect obviously contravenes basic thermodynamics, and this encyclopedia's about informing readers rather than puzzling them – if you've no objection, I'll clarify the article. .. dave souza, talk 10:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do -- this article needs significant clarification.  And no Sadi, I'm not making any substantial edits until the Sadi Show ends.  •Jim62sch• 21:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Entropy (order and disorder)#Adiabatic demagnetization clarified as requested. Sadi, it's good that you don't care about the order-disorder entropy perspective, and you'll readily appreciate that consideration of energy flow is always needed to explain what's going on. .. dave souza, talk 11:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolution, order, and entropy

message: OK, let's get this clear -- this statement is wrong: The word “chaos” itself is based on the Greek word tarakhe for "disorder".  Let us look at the ref: c.1440, "gaping void," from L. chaos, from Gk. khaos "abyss, that which gapes wide open, is vast and empty," from *khnwos, from PIE base *gheu-, *gh(e)i- "to gape" (cf. Gk khaino "I yawn," O.E. ginian, O.N. ginnunga-gap; see yawn). Meaning "utter confusion" (1606) is extended from theological use of chaos for "the void at the beginning of creation" in Vulgate version of Genesis. The Gk. for "disorder" was tarakhe, however the use of chaos here was rooted in Hesiod ("Theogony"), who describes khaos as the primeval emptiness of the Universe, begetter of Erebus and Nyx ("Night"), and in Ovid ("Metamorphoses"), who opposes Khaos to Kosmos, "the ordered Universe." Chaotic is from 1713.  Do we all see "from PIE base *gheu-, *gh(e)i- "to gape""?  Yes?  That is the end of the etymology.  The remainder before "yawn)."  deals with cognates.  In other words, chaos no more comes from tanakhe than it does from lithos.  The remainder deals with the writings of antiquity and has not a damned thing to do  with why it was used in the article.
Now, how, besides the ref, do I know this?  Because linguistics is one of my specialties and because I can read and write Classical Greek.  Now that I have explained this, I do not expect to see that κοπρος βοος reinserted into the article. •Jim62sch• 23:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thank's Jim62; yesterday I read the chaos = disorder (Greek etymology) in a thermodynamics book yesterday.  I'll leave the definition out until I can find the textbook source; it will take me some time to track down where I saw it though (I'll keep looking).  Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 08:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's irrelevant what you find in a thermo textbook -- chaos does not come from tanakhe, period.  If you find the link in a linguistics textbook, well talk.  Otherwise, the issue is settled. •Jim62sch• 10:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chaos and Tanakhe

message: I have tagged this section for restructuring and rewriting: the section as it currently stands has little order and much disorder.  The writing and organisation is chaotic, and some points do not logically follow, while others are bludgeoned into oblivion. •Jim62sch• 23:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll work on cleaning it.  No new article is perfect on its first day.  I removed your tags (sorry) they seemed to have attracted a major case of vandalism.  Let's use the talk page for cleaning issues. If you have any other suggestions or want to help clean your contributions will be welcome. --Sadi Carnot 08:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Order and Disorder

message: The page is getting kind of long; I will move some of the "History" to History of entropy and some of the "Order and Disorder" to Entropy (order and disorder) and group up some of the 2nd law stuff with currently has two separate sections. --Sadi Carnot 08:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, I moved a lot of extra stuff to their own pages, gave the page a format cleaning (no deletions, other than duplicate sentences), and smoothed the page.  It is now down to 37 kb and seems to give a good overview.  Thanks for everyone's help.  Maybe, down the road, working as a group, we can get the entropy page to FA-status.  I'll request a peer-review in a few weeks.  Later: --Sadi Carnot 09:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took all of the related words out of "see" also (per WP:FA requirements), defined and sourced some new ones, and put them all in a new "definitions" section.  The article is presently at 44 kb. Bduke and Jim62 feel the article is below GA status; possibly they could leave some feedback here so that we can improve in this direction.  Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 14:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 51 kb page length

message: The two are not the same.  It is strange that such an article, about disorder, defies having an orderly appearance (even when it is orderly in fact).Kmarinas86 00:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disorder vs. length of article

message: ===Entropy===
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
*The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
*Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
*Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word 'The'. For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
*Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
*Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**it has been
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment). 
*Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: meter (A) (British: metre), organize (A) (British: organise), realize (A) (British: realise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization).
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Kmarinas86 06:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: the link in this sub-heading just leads to this Entropy article. ..dave souza, talk 10:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What obsolete terms are you referring to specifically?  As to moving the definitions I collected to disambig, I would prefer to see them made into paragraphs.  Disambig pages are for unrelated topics that have the same common name.  The definitions I added are all related to Clausius’ entropy in some connected way or another. --Sadi Carnot 16:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Results of Automated Peer Review

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
*The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
*Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
*Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word 'The'. For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
*Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
*Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**it has been
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment). 
*Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: meter (A) (British: metre), organize (A) (British: organise), realize (A) (British: realise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization).
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Kmarinas86 06:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: the link in this sub-heading just leads to this Entropy article. ..dave souza, talk 10:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Entropy]]

message: Thanks for getting that, it gives useful pointers. The lead clearly needs to be rethought, and I'll try to consider that: to some extent it will follow from the structure and hence the contents of the article. The article's recently acquired lists of brief definitions without explanations: these should be incorporated into explanatory text, or moved to Entropy (disambiguation). There's also rather a tendency to throw in obsolescent terms – these are appropriate in the History of entropy article, but tend to make the main article more confusing, which we can do without. .. dave souza, talk 10:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What obsolete terms are you referring to specifically?  As to moving the definitions I collected to disambig, I would prefer to see them made into paragraphs.  Disambig pages are for unrelated topics that have the same common name.  The definitions I added are all related to Clausius’ entropy in some connected way or another. --Sadi Carnot 16:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Implementation

message: The more I ponder the concept, the more wrong it appears to be.  I note that in the the 7th edition (2005), there is no mention of adiabatic demagnetization.  In what chapter/topic did it appear in the 3rd edition (1988) that you used?  The presentation you give on 'order/disorder' of 'atomic order-disorder' is simplistic to the point of meaninglessness.  The five step diagram in the wiki article "Magnetic Refrigeration" is far superior and much more essential for gaining an understanding of the process.
:.." In the first step of magnetization, the external magnet aligns the spins of the 'atomic magnets' in a system of inorganic crystals that have been cooled to the temperature of liquid helium. This magnetic alignment greatly increases the gap between spin energy levels. Because this means that there fewer accessible energy levels, the original energy cannot be as dispersed s it was -- and the excess undispersed spin energy is transferred to lattice energy.  Then,  because lattice energy determines the temperature of the crystals, this increase in lattice energy causes the crystal temperature to rise.  After the external cooling bath of liquid helium cools the warmer magnetiized system to liquid He temperature (about 1K, 
the system is insulated and the external magnetic field rapidly decreased.  However, now the spin levels are returned to their original smaller-gap levels and there are many un- or relatively sparsely-occupied spin levels and energy is transferred from the lattice energy of the crystal to the energy-deficient atomic spins to restore their energetic equilibrium,  Consequently, the decrease in lattice energy means that the crystals drop below the temperature at which they were (i.e., below liquid He temperature)."  
Thus, in no sense is the appearance order and disorder causal in this process (nor are they ever causal re entropy, they are mere symptoms.) Energy transfer/T, (disperal, or if you prefer "energy flow") as in all entropy changes, is the proper focus, as it has been since Clausius! •Jim62sch• 10:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See: ch. 22, pgs: 525-26.  Later: --Sadi Carnot 16:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which edition? •Jim62sch• 22:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 3rd Ed. Later: --Sadi Carnot 01:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, yes, I see.  Just to verify, you were refering to pp. 525-526 in the 3rd edition of Halliday and Resnick, yes?  I suppose that is why I felt the description you offer of adiabatic demagnetization was rather weak. Those pages are baby steps to entropy itself, and have in fact been removed from the most recent editions.  Myself, I prefer my specific and detailed analysis based on Kittel and Kroemer, as I prefer the entree to the appetizer. ;) •Jim62sch• 22:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adiabatic demag

message: :see entropy query that started this.
This really needs simplifying to make it understanable by the average person. I am a degree qualified (electronics) engineer and I can't understand it! So what chance does Joe Public have?--Light current 02:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I am a degree qualified (electrical) engineer and I can understand it!  Moreover, as a group we have been working on trying to improve the lead towards that of the "novice" perspective over the last several months.  Check the archives.  This is a big issue.  It is difficult not to compromise the integrity of the article for the sake of Joe Public by dumbing it down so much that it isn't even credible any more.  Please, per the requirements of WP:Featured Article and WP:Lead, the "lead" needs to be at least 3 paragraphs.  I will attach a link to Introduction to entropy which is where you may want to take your concerns.  Thank you: --Sadi Carnot 02:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When it comes to improving quality and understandability of any article, the rule is WP:IAR. I suggest the only reason you understand it is that you have been working on it for 3 months. Most readers dont have that sort of time! 8-|--Light current 06:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have suggestions or ideas on how to facilitate the understanding of entropy without making up original research or conceptions, please feel free.  Cutting the intro down to one paragraph, however, doesn't help.  Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 13:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead