Friday, September 17, 2010
Did Boyd Get Entropy Wrong?
Orge here -- I suspect that Boyd, as bright as he was, and as much as I respect what he accomplished, is not so good on thermodynamics. While I don't intend to discuss entropy (the part of a thermodynamic equation that shows irrevesability and how far the process is from the ideal adiabatic process) at length, I want to ask if anyone else remembers fom their thermo days the concept of entropy and agrees that Boyd got it wrong. I figure that if this discussion can teach me in this, perhaps it will be a good forum to learn other, more important things.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
@Orge - Excellent point...also don't fear diving into the definition of entropy a little...you want the reader to understand your exact point so they can correct you if you got it wrong or elaborate even more if they agree. So from the Wikipedia entry for entropy at
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
"Entropy is a macroscopic property of a system that is a measure of the microscopic disorder within the system. It is an important part of the second law of thermodynamics. Thermodynamic systems are made up of microscopic objects, e.g. atoms or molecules, which "carry" energy. According to the second law, the thermodynamic entropy is a measure of the amount of energy which does no work during energy conversions."
What was it exactly that Boyd said in "Destruction and Creation" that you disagree with?
https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddkm8br3_17ft2x22
What I object to in Boyd's insightful article is that he seems to confuse complexity with disorder and disorder with entropy. My
ReplyDeleteunderstanding of entropy is classical thermodynamics and I am not convinced that the statistical mechanics use of the term is helpful in his argument.
For a discussion of entropy as I understand it, you can go to:
http://www.tim-thompson.com/entropy1.html
As work is done, the unusable energy in a system increases (energy that cannot go back to its previous state). It seems to me that this unusable energy is a function of the progress of time, not disorder.
I must admit that it is more of a definition preference than anything. If calling disorder "entropy" is a useful tool, I suppose
folks can use it as such, but I am not sure it adds very much true understanding. This is because at our level of existence, order is a naturally occurring phenomenon. Does it really matter that as the dust settles, planets form, tides flow, streams gather into rivers into lakes, crystals form, cells divide, etc that the entropy of the universe increases?
I found it helpful to look at Boyd's use of the term "entropy" from the point of view of communications and information theory.
ReplyDeleteyeezy shoes
ReplyDeletehermes handbags
red bottom shoes
lebron james shoes
adidas tubular shadow
adidas ultra
kd 11
moncler jacket
yeezy boost 350
supreme clothing