IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New What makes it surprising...
...is the scale of the system they observed the effect in. Since the second law is a statistical law, in small-number systems you'd naturally expect to see it break down once in a while. But this particular experiment featured latex beads a few microns in size, suspended in water. Relatively speaking, these are huge objects, comprised as they are of tens of billions of atoms. The sorts of naive counting argument that have indeed been around since the 19th century would say that seeing any kind of fluctuation on this size scale would be extremely unlikely. You need some substantially fancier math to get a more accurate estimate, and this is apparently what was invented around 10 years ago. Having experimental confirmation of the theory is very important too, because it may mean that cell biologists will have to update their models: cells are on the same size scale as the objects the physicists studied. Mesoscale physics is on a much bigger length scale than we thought!

New Thanks for the clarification
But from the popularized article it looked to me like the billions of particles are a red herring. Rather what matters is the relative motion of the hundred particles that they watched.

Did something get lost in the popularization? How did they measure the entropy of the system?

Thanks,
Ben
"... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything."
--Richard Feynman
New Heh.. how do we 'measure' the entropy of the Cosmos (?)
It would appear that the imaginary line between micro and macro is neither fine nor broad - but entirely situational (too).

Unless we imagine we shall score a lateral arabesque around that ol Debbil - the effects of the Observer (?) or in present case: the light energy to watch those small balls. hmmmm maybe ~ menstrual cycle simile at work elsewhere..

Games are fun though; you can always construct a New one.

:-\ufffd
New Re: Thanks for the clarification
The reason that billions wasn't a red herring was because an individual bead in the water was getting a useful work from the thermal kicks the surrounding water imparted to it. This means that the relevant number is the number of water molecules striking the bead at each moment.

I'm not sure how they did the measurements, because I was only able to find the abstract, and a short note in the AIP Bulletin. I probably wouldn't be able to understand them anyway, since my physics degree is now 5 years old. :)

[link|http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v89/e050601| [link|http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v89/e050601|http://link.aps.org.../v89/e050601] ]

[link|http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/598-1.html| [link|http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/598-1.html|http://www.aip.org/...t/598-1.html]]
New Hey, at least you *have* a physics degree
Me, I am an interested amateur who skipped the minor when I realized that if I didn't get the minor then I could avoid taking thermodynamics from one of the worst teachers I have had the displeasure of meeting.

As for the description, that does sound more suprising than what I assumed.

Cheers,
Ben
"... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything."
--Richard Feynman
New What Happens...
..if you take into account the entropy of the EM field between the manually charged particles? The presence of essential EM is critical. For example, in the simple case of fast moving electrons, it doesn't appear that action=reaction unless you take into account the energy and momentum stored in the field.

I am deeply skeptical of this claim. By its very nature, it is monotonic and *must* be to provide the necessary dual statement to energy conservation. The principles of thermodynamics are ultimately projective and not metric.

-drl

     Thermodynamics doesn't scale downward - (marlowe) - (8)
         If I find lots of tiny monkeys with tiny typewriters..... - (tablizer)
         This is no surprise to me - (ben_tilly) - (6)
             What makes it surprising... - (neelk) - (5)
                 Thanks for the clarification - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                     Heh.. how do we 'measure' the entropy of the Cosmos (?) - (Ashton)
                     Re: Thanks for the clarification - (neelk) - (1)
                         Hey, at least you *have* a physics degree - (ben_tilly)
                 What Happens... - (deSitter)

It breathes. -MORE-
43 ms