Re: HT Query "Dark Energy & the 1st and 2nd Laws?"
Dear Sir or Madam,
Thank you for your link in Wikipedia and offer to field questions. I am currently researching the following topics though I have a degree in Systems Theory, not physics.
a. The cosmological constant that formulaically describes dark energy expansion.
It seems to me (in accord possibly with Hoyle's pedilection for energy creation in the defunct steady state theory) that the continuous creation of space also posits the continuous creation of energy. I say this because Penrose (in The Road to Reality, 2004) says that the mass-energy of the cosmological constant
contributes ~ 70% opposite gravitational effect. If energy was created in the inflationary era, why might that no longer pertain under expansion?
Could you please comment on whether the 1st law really only applies with certainty to a closed environment or whether I misconstrue. Or perhaps the whole subject is mired in controversy? I have no way of knowing.
b. I understand that both 1st and 2nd principles are undefined at quantum level. In other words, there is
no known heat loss or energy loss or gain in sub-microscopic fluctuations -Is correct please?
c. Could you advise if atomic interactions always involve 1st and 2nd principles without exception.
Thank you for helping me with these questions. I look forward to hearing from you.
Re: HT Query "Dark Energy & the 1st and 2nd Laws?"
I know that I said I would give you a full answer today, yet I have been at the computer almost constantly over the last three days and I’m still behind. I have Penrose’s Book, and a started reading the thermodynamics chapter, but I am still not caught up to the point where I though I would be. Thus, here I will give you off-the-top of my head answers to your questions (so take them with a grain of salt), as I have not researched your questions thoroughly yet; but I plan to. In the coming weeks I will filter your questions thought some of the other IoHT members and then post a consensus online to your questions. I will email you when that is ready.
For the moment, regarding your cosmological constant / dark energy / dark matter concerns, from what I know, no one has been able to explain why the universe is presently accelerating, or why satellites released from earth’s outer orbits increase in acceleration as they move away from the earth? Also, no one seems to know what either dark matter or dark energy is? Regarding the constant, no one presently knows if the universe is bounded and will eventually contract or if it is unbounded and will expand forever until black hole evaporations occur?
Regarding the creation of energy, from what I understand, the energy portion of the universe consists of the four fundamental forces in composition. And these four may couple with each other, unite, or separate depending upon the system temperature. I know that electromagnetic energy is released from nuclear reactions in the sun, and hawking radiation releases out of the center of black holes, but other than that I don’t know of any form of current energy creation.
Regarding your 1st Law queries, I understand that the 1st Law applies to all systems (open or closed). If you have a open system, you simple set up a “what goes in must come out” energy-mass balance equation which is basically the first law. Generally speaking, according to the standard model, there are 16 fundamental particles in this universe, out of which all is made. These 16 entities may interact, and transform with each other, but may not be destroyed. This is the essence of the 1st Law. And this law and the 2nd Law apply readily at the quantum level; however, no one seems to be willing to discuss quantum versions of the second law. Basically, the second law is about tendencies of movement patterns of the photon, i.e. photons move from hot to cold structures. Thus, at the quantum level we are talking about the tendencies of gluon movements. The quantum 2nd Law would dictate that gluons tend to move in a preferred direction. That direction I do not know off the top of my head; but generally it would be something like: gluons tend to move from ‘hot’ (unstable) quarks to ‘cold’ (stable) quarks, or something along these lines.
Regarding "is there heat (energy) loss at the sub-microscopic level", I would say yes; being that all structures seem to have a half-life and hence continue to lose something (bits of energy) as they evolve towards their point of instability.
Regarding "do the 1st and 2nd principles apply to atomic arraignments", to this answer I would give a strong YES. This is what the laws are based on - atomic interactions. I see complete agreement here.
Write you later when I get feedback from some of the other IoHT members.
Re: HT Query "QM, Time Symmetry, and Entropy Increase?"
I hadn't expected to receive such a generous reply. I am really most grateful for the trouble you have taken. You have given me some new information which is very useful. Thank you.
One point of clarification: I take it that quantum interactions are both time symmetric and involve increasing entropy? I was under the impression that only time-asymmetric systems (atomic & macro reality) were subject to 2nd law & hence increasing entropy.
Re: HT Query "QM, Time Symmetry, and Entropy Increase?"
Just some quick (loose) answers for now. Again, the thermodynamics of particle physics is not something that I am super confident on at present.
In a predominant manner, I understand that the majority of universal interactions are not symmetric under time reversal. Furthermore, in my opinion (I have recently read several books on the essence of time), time is not a real quantity. From what I understand, it is just the perspective of the cyclical movement patterns of all of the objects about the entity (as a human-molecule ) that chooses to quantify these movement patterns.
Regarding time symmetric interactions, there are certain restricted things or processes in the universe that seem to fluctuate about an equilibrium point as particle/anti-particle transformations, or chemical clock reactions that react to products and than transform back to reactants, and others. Generally, I understand these such that there exist two equilibrium states for such interactions that are equally probable.
Now if you want to try to bring entropy in to the mix, you must understand that the word and concept of 'entropy' (as a measure of organization) is an approximation of an approximation of an approximation. Basically, in the early days of steam engine construction, you would burn a 100 units of energy (as coal or wood), use this energy to boil steam, put this steam into a piston, let the steam push the piston, let the piston turn a crank, let the crank work a pulley, and then let the pulley lift buckets of water out of flooded salt mines in England. This is what the first (Savery) engine was used for. However, with this contraption only two units of energy were actually transformed into work output; hence the process was very wasteful. To quantify all of this mess, those as Gibbs, Helmholtz, Clausius, and Boltzmann derived the relation:
Basically, if you have a system as a piston, at an initial state (high pressure, high temperature) you will want to calculate how the final state of the system will be after it does work via pushing the piston. Thus, 'H', or enthalpy, is basically the total energy content of the system, 'S', or entropy, is the quantity of energy that is not used to do work, and 'G', or free energy, is the quantity derived from the total system energy that is used to do useful work.
This is all good, but then in 1875 Boltzmann correlated (via an approximation) entropy to probability [S = klogW]; were W is the number of possible states of the system, and k is a constant. From here other scientists latched on to this idea as 'W' being a measure of all types of organization in the universe, from the subatomic to the galactic. So always remember that entropy is nothing more then the "the energy that isn't used to push the piston". Furthermore, when people use entropy as a form of organization in this context (as it is found in many versions of the second law - as #8):
You have to note that systems can both organize or de-organize depending upon which way the fundamental force particles (gluons, photons, bosons, gravitons) are moving through the system boundary. In the earth-system case, photons are moving inward, hence the organization of the system has increased over the years. Hence, the earth has increased its measure of entropy since its inception 4.6 billion years ago, when at that time it was just a cloud of gas and dust. So at the quantum level I sure you can find isolated situations, in which organization may increase (or decrease) depending upon gluonic-interactions. Thus, quantum entropy may either decrease or increase, depending upon how the system boundary is delineated.
Give me a month or so, and I will write you back with other member’s comments.
If we consider a field of electromagnetic energy, we may either treat it as a continuous field, I believe, or as a field of discrete particles. Would it be true to say that as a field of particles, we can construe gaps between the particles? In other words, the gaps go away in a field interpretation?
To find your answer to this question, you will need to study the famous "double slits experiment", in which either a single electron or a single photon is fired at a wall containing two slits. In my opinion, this is one of the most puzzling experimental results in current science. Basically, in either case, the result is such that mysteriously the 'single' photon (or electron) somehow goes through both slits?
I've read at least a dozen interpretations of this experiment and they all lack in fundamental explanation. For example, the 1999 Nobel Prize winner in physics Martinus Veltman, in his 2003 book: "Facts and Mysteries in Elementary Particle Physics", states this regarding the double slits experiment:
"When one tries to explicitly follow how a particle moves, from the light source, through the slit to the screen things become difficult; we will not occupy ourselves with questions concerning the whereabouts of the photon on its trajectory from the source to the screen. It is daydreaming. Do not ask if the particle did follow some continuous path. We do not know about that. Forget about it."
Thus, here we see that even such a great Nobelist cannot figure the problem out. Myself, I am very curious as to how this whole process operates. In my opinion, it would have something to do with what is internal to both the photon and the electron, i.e. their composition. For example, in recent years there have been speculations that the electron can split apart into bubbles in ultra-cold liquid helium; see science news article "Electron Breakup":
Thus, in theory, for one photon to go through two slits it would need to split apart? From my studies in electrical engineering, I know that a moving photon has two parts: a magnetic field component and an electric field component which move in a sinusoidal manner; and these are oriented perpendicular to each other according Maxwell's field equations. Other than this, I don't know what is inside of a photon?
Also, according to fundamental force theory, as it is currently understood, the electromagnetic force functions to hold things together via exchanging "messenger particles" [four in number: gluons, photons, bosons, and gravitons]. The electron picture is about the same except that electrons are transferred or moved around between different atom / molecular structures rather than exchanged. In each case, loosely you could say that both the electron and the photon are particles in constitution, but when
they move through space their internal framework oscillates (like a wave). Furthermore, these oscillations when grouped may interact symbiotically, i.e. their exchanges and interactions harmonize with time. Thus, in summary, I would lean towards the conclusion that there the gaps are ever-present; yet through harmonious action, when viewed from a certain perspective, a gap-free appearance may arise.
P.S. I will forward you Georgi Gladyshev's comments on your queries; he is a senior Russian physical chemistry professor, with an interest in planetary interactions.
To: Terry Barnes [England] and Libb Thims [Chicago]
Re: HT Query "Wave Particle Duality?"
This is a problematic discussion. We have no correct experimental (observant) data in this field. However, I agree with your same statements and the phase: "Regarding "do the 1st and 2nd principles apply to >> atomic arraignments" to this answer I would give a >> strong YES". Than I should say, that the Penrose's interpretation of second law (as the Boltzmann's interpretation) in my opinion is not correct!
In my article THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS AND EVOLUTION OF LIVING SYSTEMS (I sent you before, and I am sending you once again) you can find:
"I would like to note that the quotations presented below do not pertain to the second law of thermodynamics in its classical form [2, 9, 10]. Today, they may seem surprising, especially taking into account that all this was written several years after Gibbs published his works.
 Gibbs JW. The Collected Works of J. Willard Gibbs. Thermodynamics, Vol.1. New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1928
 Silbey RJ., Alberty RA. Physical Chemistry, 3rd Ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2001.
 Denbigh KG. The Principle of Chemical Equilibrium, 3ed Ed. Cambridge: University Press, Cambridge, 1971.
For example, Boltzmann (1886) wrote,
"The general struggle for existence of animate beings is therefore not a struggle for raw materials - these, for organisms, are air, water and soil, all abundantly available-nor for energy which exists in plenty in any body in the form of heat (albeit unfortunately not transformable), but a struggle for entropy, which becomes available through the transition of energy from the hot sun to the cold earth."...."
Penrose says that Earth receives low entropy energy from the sun that is ingested by plants via photosynthesis. Animals benefit by consuming plants etc. Earth radiates back into space high(er) entropy energy. Earth emits much larger number of photons than it receives.
1) I would be glad of a revised version if you think this is wrong.
2) Could you give me your opinion as to whether high entropy energy could be roughly described as degraded energy? There needs to be some easy way of conveying to non physics person; would "degraded energy" be a misleading term?
3) As I understand, low entropy energy transitions over vast stretches of time to high entropy energy (attenuated waves) as consequence of cosmic construction via gravity involving expansionary cooling. Please comment on this, if you wish.
I'm very grateful for your feedback. Your notes regarding double split experiment are especially useful, thanks. Also your explanation of electromagnetic radiation and force is very helpful.
4) It seems that if we view fundamental level as energy, then particles are 'excitations' whereas if we view as particles, then energy becomes particulate through combinatorial forces (except gravity). Both views are correct perhaps.
5) I think Penrose sees the universe as having begun with 'pure energy' and particulate matter as being derivative. Hence wave-like appearance is perhaps more fundamental than particles. The double split experiment showed that energy is fundamentally wave-like (entanglement) but the nature of entanglement is beyond current physics.
To: Terry Barnes [England] and Libb Thims [Chicago]
Re: HT Query "Low Energy Entropy & Photons"
"the Earth receives low entropy energy from the sun that is ingested by plants via photosynthesis. Animals benefit by consuming plants etc. Earth radiates back into space high(er) entropy energy. Earth emits much larger number of photons than it receives.”
I do not like the conceptions of “low entropy energy” and “high(er) entropy energy”! I do not know of these terms in the classic phenomenological thermodynamics. I believe it is an interpretation of L. Boltzmann.
The entropy is the function of state in the phenomenological thermodynamics, and mere. The internal energy, Gibbs energy, and other functions are the functions of state too! We operate the state functions only. In thermodynamics we must identify, i.e. liberate, the thermodynamic systems! R. Penrose does not identify or liberate the monohierarchical thermodynamic system where no work or only extension work is performed – it is in simple systems (see my book , p.135) that we investigate the corresponding process via the entropy change [∆S]. His conception is a non-thermodynamic conception! The variation entropy determines the behavior of the simple isolated system only. For example, within the isolated ideal gas or the isolated ideal system of human particles – as with Thims’ human molecules!
 Gladyshev, G. (1987). Thermodynamic Theory of the Evolution of Living Beings. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
 First, both the terms “low entropy energy” and “degraded energy” are very poor in a grammatical sense. Typically, you will find non-engineering types using these off terms, e.g. Penrose is a mathematician and Eric Schneider, who in his 2005 book “Into the Cool – energy flow, thermodynamics, and life” uses these terms, is an ecologist). Always remember, energy in its pure form, comprises the four fundamental forces, predominately. With human-related phenomena, the photon takes center stage.
The short and fast version states that photons are injected into a bio-geo-chemical system (the earth) comprised of 92 varieties nuclei and a consortium of electrons, over the course of 4.6 billion years. These injections trigger chemical reactions, i.e. old bonds break, new bonds form. An energy balance on this constant temperature, constant pressure system finds that there will result to be an over all energy change in the system over this 4.6 billion years—this quantity of energy change is called enthalpy change “∆H”. From here, this “total” energy change gets divided into two parts. One part goes to waste owing to intermolecular friction “T∆S”. The remainder of this total energy, after the parts gone to waste are subtracted, is quantified as "free" energy change “∆G”, being defined as energy derived from a reaction, free (available) to do useful work in the system.
Work, in its original form, is defined as “weight lifted through a height” or currently “directed energy change resulting from a process (as a reaction).” In this light, we see that all variations of evolution result from “work”, be it tassel of grass lifting magnesium atoms through a vertical height and into in structure, or be it a man raising his family, it’s all in essence energy change resulting from a process.
 The term “degraded energy” is just an off way of talking about solar energy. When photons are freely moving through space they have a lot of electromagnetic potential energy caught up in their movement; hence, we might call this movement pattern a form of high quality energy, or energy of a higher “grade”. When a molecular structure absorbs this photonic energy, in its layers of atomic orbitals, it becomes stored in that structure; hence, we might call stored photons a form of low quality energy, or energy of a lower “grade”. In my opinion, this whole concept is a waste of intellectual time; nevertheless, it is prevalent in current literature.
 Instead of talking about low or high entropy energy transitions, it is better and more direct to talk about energy in terms of “frequency”; high frequency, e.g. ultraviolet light, contains more energy, and low frequency, e.g. radio-waves, contain less energy.
 Yes, the fundamental level is the only true line of inquiry. “Excitations” and “Placations” are the best way to view fundamental interactions. If you view or visualize something attractive you are “excited” towards that objective. If you view or visualize something unattractive you are “repulsed” away from that objective. Whenever attractions outweigh repulsions, according to a set ratio, resultantly the objects involved are placated and as viewed from a distance a perceptual “bond” forms.
 This point is still up in the air from what I understand? I like the fundamental particle conception of the world; and crudely I understand that these 16 fundamentals move in or oscillate in a sinusoidal manner. And the double-slits is something I’m still trying to figure out?
:: Consulting & Queries ::
Query #1:: "Dark Energy & the 1st and 2nd Laws?" ('05)
Query #2:: "QM, Time Symmetry, and Entropy Increase?" ('05)
Regarding “less driven”, the way I would put it to you is first figure out where you’re driving. In human life the road map is a sociological (electromagnetic) network of potential activity done either in accordance or not in accordance with virtue; i.e.:
Inspected your bio. It seems you are momentously over-achieving, how do you manage that? I observe you're a life coach, so I shall burden you, like everyone else, with tiresome queries: tell me, how do I overcome my
sense of apathy? For the last few years I am less driven, the old molecular reactor is firing on less than four cyllinders, haha :) Personally, and simplistically, I put it down to a sudden absense of the desire to be liked.
Thanks and Happy Christmas & new year!
Everyone, at every instant in his or her life, has a specific hierarchical structured position in this network, according to which there exist (electromagnetic) "potentials" for each person to do things with his or her life. This truth yields from fact that all human activity can be boiled down to photon-electron interactions [QED]. Just like a surfer rides a (gravitational) wave towards fulfillment of its “potential” so to can a human ride a (electromagnetic) wave towards a fulfillment of his or her potential, however big or small. Do this by locking onto to your most wanting “objectives”, so to ride them through till completion. For example, the taste of food when we are hungry is pleasant because it reduces a physiological imbalance; in the same manner appeasing those most inherent drives characteristic of a person functions to reduce a thermal physiological imbalance in the social structure, where satisfaction can only be obtained by removing the state of stimulation at the source of the instinct. Such activity occupies the “amygdale”, the darkness-feeling producing region of the brain.
We’re all stuck in this box of a world so to speak; once introduced, following our point of inception, we seem to be confined according to a variety of departure points which delineate according to measurable amounts of virtuous activity transconfiguring until one can no longer function virtuously, as in life support, etc. Quoting from Viktor Frankl the famed physiologist and concentration camp survivor:
“For success, like happiness, cannot be pursued; it must ensue…as the unintended side-effect of one’s personal dedication to a course greater than oneself.”
"We all are forced to work or be active owing to electromagnetic solar influx; the only thing which can be perceived by the senses is a force."
Your listing of possible 4th laws of thermodynamics is missing one of the best and most promising: namely the 4th law as stated by William A Dembski in his book "No Free Lunch" (Rowman and Littlefield, 2001) - page 166.
"The complex specified (i.e. functional) information within a closed system cannot increase solely under the action of natural law - modulo the universal complexity bound"
Although the metaphysical implications of this law are not generally culturally so culturally acceptable the rational and formulation are sound and also from the basis of fairness to all concerned I believe you should include this formation of the 4th law in your list.
I appreciate the input; however, Dembski is religious-biased. Thermodynamics, from a scientific perspective, is about protons, neutrons, electrons and photons, that’s it. Also, this version you present is contradictory and recursive; i.e. “A Law that says there is no Law”. If, however, you come across other versions please don’t hesitate,
My father is a retired mechanical engineering professor. For a while in his career, he gave humorous talks on a variety of subjects, including some engineering principles. His re-statement of the 2nd Law is, simply, "There ain't no free lunch".
Thus, far for the sake of uniformity, we have not included “humorous” 1st Law versions in the IoHT list. Possibly, in the future, however, we might start a: Laws of Thermodynamics (Miscellaneous) List?
It would seem to me that the "lifetime" of any living mass has been correlated by biological researchers to over 21 orders of magnitude!!! Is there any principle that says when you look at atoms (or molecules) their "lifetime" is an oscillation between being there and not being there, i.e. a frequency that is related in Planck relations of energy?
For example, interpreting c^2 as an acceleration times a distance I find that (c^2)/r, where r is a nuclei radius implies an inverse mass of an electron, while when r is the shell radius; it implies an inverse mass of the proton (for H). In other words, there is dynamic equilibrium between the nucleus going out and electrons going in (dragging protons back by Coulombic forces). Is this an explanation for the innumerable particles one finds when entering this zone with photons, electrons, and protons?
Just a crazy idea of many that nags my head. Usually, I reach a dead end in a search for an answer to "So, what?", but....
Is there any principle that says when you look at atoms (or molecules) their "lifetime" is an oscillation between being there and not being there, i.e. a frequency that is related in Planck relations of energy?
All molecular structures in the universe, from hydrogen to human, oscillate, rotate, or spin, in some manner or another; hence, theoretically one could, in premise, ascribe a frequency to this oscillation, then connect this frequency to a relation of energy. Regarding, popping in and out of existence, at the sub-atomic level speculative theories abound; at the molecular level such theories seem to be a far stretch, but you might want to refer to: multiverse, quantum fluctuations, virtual particles, and the many-worlds interpretation.
Regarding the second part of your question:
For example, interpreting c^2 as an acceleration times a distance I find that (c^2)/r, where r is a nuclei radius implies an inverse mass of an electron, while when r is the shell radius; it implies an inverse mass of the proton (for H).
I don’t know what exactly you’re trying to derive?
In the proton two up quarks and one down quark combine to yield a positive charge of (+) one; these positive charges attract the negative (-) charges of electrons; however, when too many electrons converge around the positive nucleus, repulsion results. The sum of these attractive-to-repulsive movement patterns actuates to create a dynamic equilibrium. An exchange of photons between the nuclear core and the surrounding sea of electrons is what functions to mediate these attractive-to-repulsive movement patterns. Coulombic force simply means that like charges repel and opposite charges attract; in either case, it is the electromagnetic force in operation.
I guess it’s up to you what you put on your site. However, I don't think it is being religious to suggest that information can be put into our universe (after all it is philosophically accepted that our universe must be grounded on something apart from itself). If one is an atheist yes perhaps such concepts are out of bounds, but science is not predicated on atheism. Methodological naturalism is fine when it comes to bench-top science - but to apply it to the past is philosophically wrong. It deletes possible divine activity in one fell
swoop - the early pioneers of science would be horrified. Moreover, Dembski's 4th law does not negate natural law - it upholds it by placing the emphasis on the setting of boundary conditions (which are not necessarily the result of natural law). The structures we have in the universe (comprised of protons, neutrons, electrons, etc.) are information rich and modern science is far away from any satisfactory explanation. Scientists of the caliber of Victor Weisskopf and Nobel Laureate Peter Medawar have upheld some similar form of the 4th. Dembski's formulation is mathematically based - I cannot say the same
for others I have seen. I would thus suggest that you give Dembski the benefit of the doubt so that your site may not be seen as in any way biased. However, I guess it’s up to you what you put on your site.
There is merit to your point regarding information in the form of fundamental particles possibly entering or leaving the observable universe in ways that are not yet detectable, e.g. black holes, etc. Based on your interest, we may possibly, in the future, start an extra Thermodynamics Laws (miscellaneous) page; so to include versions such as Dembski’s (possibly), the Combined Law of Thermodynamics, speculative 5th Laws, etc. I will no doubt read Dembski’s book soon, it has been on my “books-to-buy” list for some time; recently, for example, I read Behe’s book (Black Box). Presently, however, I’m clogged up with 15 other books which I need to finish by next month.
It would seem that a description of motion and growth are principal processes in the matter/energy manipulations. Knowing that F= Ma is the accepted force that causes motion, in units of Kg x m/sec^2, might we reason that it can be reversed to identify a "growth force" as m x Kg/sec^2?
In attempting to derive a model for the latter, I wonder if anyone has attempted such? My interpretation of the distance, "m" as a volume to surface ratio for the mass considered, i.e. fine particles have more rapid growth/decay (a "life cycle"?) activity than coarse (e.g., sawdust to logs, say).
Interesting questions again; however, your math seems a little off with regards to your rearranging of units, but I get the gist of what you’re asking. Generally, the F = Ma equation is only applicable to interactions in which only the gravitational force is in control, as in a dropping a baseball out of a third-story window. Essentially, this equation can be used when there is no electromagnetic friction involved, e.g. wind resistance.
Regarding biological “growth”, the predominate force is the electromagnetic force. Once earth formed, owing to gravitational accretion of mass, about 4.6 billion years ago, the electromagnetic force began to take effect. From this point forward, the electromagnetic force has driven the process of evolution by “forcing” the 92 element soup, of which the early earth was made, to “react” together forming the punctuated process of growth and extinction of which we all know so well. The equations that define the electromagnetic force are called Maxwell's field equations, there are four in total.
Of course, the gravitational force still sets the “tone” for these bio-reactions, e.g. regulating daylight hours, causing gradual geological movements, setting the spin-rate of the earth (in the earth’s first billion years or so the typical day was 10-hours long), regulating hormonal levels (e.g. human gestation is 10-lunar months), regulating mood neurochemically (e.g. during a full moon people drink 25% less alcohol, typically), causing tidal expansions and contractions, etc., but it remains that the electromagnetic force solely drives chemical reactions, the human variety included (e.g. the visual sense, accounting for 80% of our sensory perception, is solely of the electromagnetic variety).
Hence from the hydrogen to bacteria to treeshrew to human this growth process is in actuality a chemical reaction process. All chemical reactions are governed via the electromagnetic force. All chemical reactions accrue to the interaction of outer-shell atomic electrons with those of the surrounding world of protons. See the following for further clarifiction:
Hence, you are correct when you state that as surface-to volume-ratio for a given molecular structure increases the reaction rate decreases. Thus, small molecular structures, as bacteria, are more active.
Thus, honest advice would be to stick to those rules, you find, which yield proven amenable outcomes.
From a neurochemical perspective, start trimming your sleep; this, over the course of a few weeks, will raise your serotonin levels (the confidence chemical). Also, do a little morning cardio; this will raise your dopamine levels (the motivation chemical). Lastly, swig a little Carson’s lemon-flavored Cod-Liver oil when you awaken in the morning; this will stock up your adrenal glands (adrenaline) for the day. Plus, 10-30% of your CNS is DHA and EPA in composition, which are fatty-acids found to be highly concentrated in fish oil.
From a thermodynamic perspective, “exergonic” bonds are fun, as in: good relationships, going after objectives, desired occupations, etc., and “endergonic” bonds are no fun, as in: divorce, arguments, jobs you hate, etc. Furthermore, there is a correlation between bond count and happiness – happy people have the highest number of “active” favored bonds:
So, you could have one super-active bond (as in going after a huge objective) or you could spread your bonds out via numerous activities and people. Also, there is correlation between hierarchy position and serotonin levels; the higher you are in the structure, the higher your serotonin levels. Furthermore, when you inject a lower ranking monkey with serotonin he or she moves up in rank in the troop order. Presumably, the higher your position in the structure, the greater your bond count, and hence the greater your structural stability, and resultant contentment (or happiness). Lastly, there are three principles to follow when choosing or loosing bonds:
Re: HT Query "Why are hot women [high entropy] inherently more unstable"
Why are “hot” women [high entropy] inherently more unstable?
Sean, excellent question! You are digging into the heart of life with this question. A full response would require at least 300 pages of theoretical discussion; plus the entire subject is not yet completely solidified into a cogent whole. Hence, here, I’ll give you the Cliff Notes version.
First we need to understand what we mean by the words “hot”, “temperature”, and “entropy”. From Schroeder’s Thermal Physics textbook (2000), we have the following definitions:
Heat – the spontaneous flow of energy from one object to another caused by a difference in temperature between the objects.
Temperature – the measure of the tendency of an object to spontaneously give up energy.
Hence, a “hot” person, either neurologically-speaking or physically-speaking, is going to be characterized by the ability to spontaneously give up a large quantity of energy. When two people bond, heat, or energy in transit, is going to flow from the hot object or facet of that person to the cold object or facet of the second person; however, both parties will have intertwined hot and cold characteristics, thus the flow of energy will be a two-way process. The process of exchanging energy thermally is called thermalization, and the period of thermalization essentially characterizes the duration of the relationship.
At what is called thermal equilibrium, the two objects will be at the same temperature. At this point, there will no longer be any passion left in the relationship. Here, typically, the bond will then evolve to break apart. Hence, in any typical human relationship two human molecules, Male = Mx, Female = Fy, are going to bond through the process of a human chemical reaction:
The bonding interaction of these two lives will tend to evolve towards stability; otherwise known as what is called an energy-well or point-attractor. To get into one of these stable energy-wells, the couple has to release energy in the form of work. The measure of energy release in the form of work in reacting systems is called free energy, symbolized by G. The measure of energy dissipated wastefully, i.e. unusable, in the form of collisions, frictions, tensions, etc., is called entropy, symbolized by S. Entropy is also associated with the organization of the system. Hot systems are typically more disorganized, i.e. chaotic. For example, water molecules in an ice-cube are very orderly and organized whereas water molecules in the vapor from, i.e. hot, are disorderly or more disorganized. A hot woman will tend to be less neurologically organized than as compared to a cold woman.
We also need to acknowledge that objects, as human molecules, can be characterized with both a unique hotness and an average hotness. Average hotness is essentially the statistical mean hotness score or value an object possesses. For example, Marilyn Monroe or Brad Pitt both have an agreed upon high average hotness value. Unique hotness is essentially that facet of hotness characteristic of two unique molecules bonded into a thermalizing relationship; this derives from unique physical or neurological bonding complimentarity characteristics. To compound the matter, there is also neurological hotness and physical hotness. For example, both Cleopatra and Beethoven were described as having a homely, plain, or un-attractive appearance, but are now both known to us as neurologically-hot individuals, perhaps even beautiful, owing to their escapades.
To tie this all together, statistically it is known people characterized by a high-average hotness, as supermodels and the like who pair-bond or marry will tend to divorce sooner than as compared to medium-average hotness couples. Hence, if a man bonds with a “hot” woman [high entropy], a good deal of the “work” energy of the relationship or chemical reaction will tend to be caught up in the interpersonal relationship dissipation dynamics of the couple’s exchanges, as arguing, catering, conflict, jealousy, etc. This means that energy is going inward rather into the relationship than outward into society. Inward flow of energy is what breaks up bonds.
This is not to say that one is any more or less better than the other. Here, we are simply pointing out the fact that hot intense reactions tend to be quick, whereas a slow burn reaction will last longer. We are all predisposed towards certain types of reactions.
Essentially, hot objects will give up energy quicker than will cold objects absorb energy. For example, if you put a cube of hot metal into a snow bank it will cool-off in a few seconds. Conversely, if you put a cube of cold ice onto a summer sidewalk it will melt in a few minutes. This is not a perfect comparison, but rather it is used to show that hot-bodies are very reactive and subsequently have shortened time correlations related to their window of stability. And again, hot objects are defined to have higher measures of entropy.
I see the general trend myself for hot women: more disorganized and more energy inwards. I do, however, plan on reproducing to breed the highest quality offspring possible. I will dig until I have a diamond in the rough: hot and intelligent.
I agree with your outlook; however, being “hot” and “organized” is a contradiction in terms. A diamond is a perfectly organized crystalline structure, but it is not hot. To create a perfectly organized structure, you either have to put the system under a great deal of pressure or you have have to drive the system towards absolute zero of temperature; this latter statement is what is known as the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics.
A hot fire burning gives off a lot of energy, but it is a very chaotic reaction. There will always be a trade off when selecting for mates: if you select highly for physical attractiveness, there will be a decrease in neurological attractiveness; if you select highly for neurological attractiveness, there will be a decrease in physical attractiveness. An organized hot molecule is like saying that you have a hot icecube or that you're dating a High-IQPlayboy Bunny, it's a contradiction in terms.
Re: HT Query "Which Comes First: Motion or Growth"
Libb, your comments much appreciated. Keeps me awake at night.
I am obsessed with the idea of motion and growth, where biology appears to have the correlation of mass versus lifetime something like Log M proportional to log time. Taking such data and plotted down to atomic sizes gives a lifetime of a muon right on the line. Then in a dream, I saw the nucleus of atoms seeking larger mass to assure longer "life" and now trying to devise a consistent scheme for analyzing motion and growth as a Mass (y-axix) versus motion as a Position (x-axis), i.e., Mass is a position, while energy is "space". (like a thermodynamic treatment...ideas from my M.S. thesis advisor a long time ago).
Getting temperature into this scheme is a bitch, particularly through radiative influences. Is there info re: light velocity on temperature? My core question is which comes first, motion or growth? (like the chicken/egg paradox). Sure makes time fly..
Re: HT Query "Which Comes First: Motion or Growth"
Regarding: which comes first motion or growth?
At one point in the history of the evolution of the universe, everything, in theory, was hydrogen atoms, i.e. “chickens”, moving about dynamically (motion). In time, the hydrogen atoms began to react together, i.e. make “eggs”, to form helium atoms (growth), i.e. new species of “chickens”. The new helium atoms and the remaining hydrogen atoms then began moving around (motion) to eventually react further to create bigger molecules (growth). These bigger molecules eventually attached down to substrate, i.e. the surface of the earth, then reacted together, and through their mutual interactions and collisions (movement) evolved to create living biomolecules (growth). These bio-molecules continued to interact (movement) to create or evolve into human-molecules (growth). Presently, myself, being one of these human-molecules, am writing (movement) this email in response to your query to which our ideas and interactions will subsequently shape each other, however subtly (growth).