Sunday, June 12, 2016

On Week’s Efficiency of Nature and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

It became such a treat that googling ‘How efficient is Nature?’ I stumbled on Dave Week’s Frogtails Y1995 [1] article answering the same question. And he hit the target on its head, as my heart momentarily stopped. His answer was:

“Perhaps nature has the view that with unlimited resources and time it doesn't really matter whether or not the most efficient systems are in place. It only matters that they work once in a while. Even then (remember the dinosaurs), if things do not continue to work as intended, so what!”

I called this Week’s Dictum. And, it dawns on me that Nature has no definition of efficiency [2] and the Laws of Thermodynamics affirm this dictum; Nature’s supply of mass and energy are constant, as guaranteed by the Zeroth and the First Laws. And in cases that these Laws were compromised or momentarily suspended by Nature’s own complexity, the Second Law or Entropy guarantees that with time, these laws would be restored.

However, there is an interesting mystery of how Entropy works; though it would restores constancy of mass and energy, it would not guarantee that final forms of matter would be the same. This is Nature’s trump card: Entropy restores constancy of energy and mass, and, yet creates diversity in the final product. Hence, Entropy is Nature’s creative force by creating new possibilities as different forms of matter through dispersion [3] of mass and energy !

This idea is completely un-palatable and counter-intuitive to most scientists, engineers, and, economists. Man always design and create systems that are efficient. One reason is scarcity of materials and energy supply. But there is insidiously wrong to seek more efficient systems:

Say we have a big man-made heterogeneous system that consists of different types of sub-systems. These sub-systems do not necessary work for or work against each other. But all of them use energy and portion of available materials from Nature. As a particular sub-system becomes more efficient, than the rest, it seeks control to ensure exclusive supply of materials, to perpetuate its existence. With time, this efficient machine will eventually dominate all the sub-systems, and lead to singular-uniform or homogeneous system.

But this efficient system,  man-made homogeneous system, is just a sub-set of Nature’s bigger system. On a bigger scheme of things, man’s system is always smaller than Nature’s. The crisis is Nature’s system is totally different to Man’s. Nature’s way is to create possibilities by dispersing mass and energy, and maintaining balance. While Man’s is concentration to ensure only one possibility: his own. Man’s system, needless to say, results to in-equality.

Such system is systemic to man-made system. And will always fail. Entropy assures that this will fail. But Man is such a proud creature. Always rationalizing his dominion to Nature, he defiled the definition of Entropy as “degree of Dis-order”, pertaining to in-efficiency, rather defines it as the creative force in Nature, guaranteeing diversity and equality.

Hence, Week’s dictum of Efficiency is so rightly tune to Nature. Perhaps, it is Man’s folly not to un-ravel this lie and hide its true meaning.

But not in my case. The next blogs will be focused on the evidences to destroy this lie.

Notes:
[1] See: http://www.frogtails.com/efficiency.html

[2] If one thinks about it, if Nature is a creation of a Universal God, asserting nature’s in-efficiency is religious blasphemy. For now, we will suspend alluding to religion or political views. Technical discussion will be central in this article.
[3] See: http://entropysite.oxy.edu/. Thermodynamic Change in Entropy is NOT measure of Disorder. As of April 2014, 36 Science textbooks have deleted "disorder" from their description of the nature of entropy. “Entropy change is the measure of how more widely a specific quantity of molecular energy is dispersed in a process, whether isothermal gas expansion, gas or liquid mixing, reversible heating and phase change or chemical reactions, as shown by the Gibbs free energy equation/T. Such movement resulted from life-long advocacy of Dr. Frank L. Lambert, Professor Emeritus, Chemistry, of Occidental College, after more than century of misinformation, and, mis-use by writers, joking mathematicians, and, philosophers.

No comments:

Post a Comment