**Next message:**AM de Lange: "Work and Free Energy -- The Dance of LEP on LEC LO25370 -Part II"**Previous message:**Don Dwiggins: "A Story about Paper LO25368"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Mail actions:**[ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Dear Organlearners,

Greetings to you all.

I dedicate this contribution to all authentic learners. Try keep on

swimming vecause this river is going to flow very far.

I want you to imagine the following coin. When looking at the one side of

it, it has a picture one it. When turning it around to look at the other

side, it has a movie on that side which can never be frozen. Like

Heraclitus said more than two millennia ago: "panta rhei" (all flow). When

turning the coin around once more, it has again a picture on it. The

picture is in some aspects the same as the previous one, but in all the

other aspects it has changed with lesser or greater differences. The coin

can be turned over and over again. By doing so, we will observe at least

one of seven patterns. It is the pattern

being to becoming to being to becoming to being to .....

This contribution is on that coin. This contribution will function as that

coin. Take a deep breath because you are about to turn the coin from the

present picture to the coming movie on the other side. At the end of this

contribution we will again turn the coin around to see the end picture. (I

will not use any subheadings which will freeze the movie.) Later you may

study the contribution again, i.e turning the coin around to experience

"panta rhei" once again. The beginning picture then will be different to

the beginning picture now. The end picture then will be different to the

ending picture of this session. It is because you will be exploring deeper

and deeper into creativity with every full revolution of the coin.

Turn the coin now.

Some people want to work and others not. Some have to work and others not.

Some work good and others not. Whatever the case, all people have some

stance in work, all think about work and all are affected by work. So what

is work?

Work has many facets or qualities in its form. These facets are covered by

a variety of subjects like theology, law, sociology, economics and

politics. These facets point to form within form, in other words,

"patterns in form". But work has also content which is studied in subjects

like physics and chemistry. It is because of this content that work can be

quantitatively determined and thus be called a physico-chemical quantity.

When we think of anything which has content and form, we tend to focus on

one of them and not both. Thus we do not become aware of the interplay

between content and form. Form influences content. For example, a cube

and a sphere have different forms. Consider a sphere with diameter of 1

meter which fits tightly into a cube with sides of 1 meter. Their contents

(volumes) differ. Likewise does content influence form. For example, as

animals become more massive (content), their legs become progressively

thicker (form) than their body. The legs of an antelope are dainty

compared to the legs of an elephant.

The work done on anything changes the form of that thing, externally or

internally. It is as if the work gets "frozen" into the new "patterns in

form" of that thing. We are invited to think that the work changes the

"organisation" of that thing. Since we are concerned about our human

organisations and how to change them for the better, it will do us good to

bear in mind that work is essential to such organisational changes.

How is it possible at all that work changes the "patterns in form"

(organisation) of anything?

How much of an answer will we get from the physicist?

When a physicist has to describe such an organisational change, he would,

for example, say that the work will move a weight from a lower to a higher

height. It is perhaps such an unpoetic description of organisational

change that we may not even recognise it as one. Nevertheless, the very

description which the physicist uses to calculate work is

. force (weight) x distance (increase in height)

This "pattern in form" consists of three things, one quantity (force),

another quantity (displacement) and multiplication (operation). The

measurement of distance is something which humankind are able

to do for many millennia. The measurement of force became possible

only after Newton had formulated his famous laws of mechanics,

thus making it possible to identify force.

The physicist can measure the force directly and can also measure the

distance directly, but has no instrument at all to measure the work

directly. Thus the physicist has to use the "description" of work to

calculate it in terms of measured force and measured distance. In other

words, the physicist has to use the fact that work changes the "pattern in

form" (or organisation) of something. To make use of a fact is not the

same as explaining a fact. Thus it seems as if humankind's many millennia

old capacity to measure distance and its three centuries old capacity to

measure force (based on Newtonian mechanics) cannot help us to explain why

work changes the "pattern in form" of anything.

But Newton's own work did something most important which we seldom bear in

mind. It caused a change in the organisation of the minds of other

physicists. He fired their imagination to seek other laws besides his own

mechanical laws. One by one they discovered these other laws too. It is

even more astounding that they could apply the "description" of work to

situations in which these other laws were operating. Consequently, the

fact that work changes the "pattern in form" (or organisation) of anything

was very useful to them. Yet they very seldom articulated this fact in

words, although they continually articulated it in their symbolic

expressions.

Gradually they became aware that there was some quantity which has many

forms (mechanical, elastical, gravitational, electrical, magnetical, etc.)

with laws operating in each form and that work could be used to connect to

each of its many forms. This quantity became known as energy. Its content

is expressed in the same unit as work. The content of each of its many

forms is also expressed in the same unit. The unit for energy in the SI

(System International) is the "joule", symbol "J". Other units are the

erg, calorie, foot-pound, etc.

As is the case for work, no instrument exists by which any these

many forms of energy can be measured directly. Any quantitative

value of every form of energy has to be determined based on

. * measurements of at least two quantities as indicated

. by "description",

. * calculation based on the "description" of that form of

. energy involving the quantities.

In each of these "descriptions" a "pattern in form" of energy is used,

prescribed by the laws discovered for that form of energy. In other

words, all the quantitative work of physicists on the many forms

of energy depends on the "patterns in form" (or "organisation") of

energy which could be changed by work.

The modern technological world runs on fossil fuel, especially oil, as its

source of energy. This oil is measured in "barrels". The "barrel" is a

unit of volume in the oil industry. Its volume is some 200 litres. The

"barrel" does not measure the amount of energy, whatever the form, within

that oil. The oil barons assume that for the oil its "volume is linearly

proportional to" its chemical form of energy. Thus even they make use of a

"pattern in form", namely "volume is linearly proportional to".

Eventually physicists became very excited because it seemed that this very

quantity energy with its many forms had a law of its own. Their excitement

stemmed from the fact that this law seemed to be indifferent to the

existence of the many other laws, almost as if it was far more superior

(or fundamental) to all these other laws so as not to be influenced by any

of them. It was as if this law was blind to the "pattern in form" of

energy, even though physicists had to make repeatedly use of "pattern in

form" to get the idea for this law and eventually to verify their idea.

It is now usually called the Law of Energy Conservation (LEC). It is often

also called the First Law of Thermodynamics, but this is somewhat a

misnomer as we will soon see.

The formulation of LEC in symbols is very simple. Consider any system

symbolised by SY which is in contact with many other systems. Consider all

these other systems together as the surrounding system (or environment or

context) symbolised by SU. The system SY and the surrounding system SU

form together the encompassing system called the universe and symbolised

by UN. Let E(un) be the total energy of the universe. This total energy

consists of all forms of energy, i.e. not one form ever excluded, not even

nuclear energy. LEC says that the total energy E(un) of the universe is

constant, i.e.

. E(un) = constant (first form)

This equation can be expanded easily into three other equations for energy

which employ the strange symbol /_\ for "difference" or "increment". (It

is the best approximation of the Greek capital letter "delta".) Firstly,

let E(un, 1) be the value of total energy E of the universe at a time

t(1). Let E(un, 2) be its value at a later time t(2). Then

. E(un, 1) = constant

. E(un, 2) = constant

By subtracting the first equation from the second, we get

. E(un, 2) - E(un, 1) = 0

This difference may be written concisely as

. /_\E(un) = 0 (second form)

It says that as time goes on, there is no difference in the total

energy E of the universe. This total energy of the universe cannot

increase (be constructed) nor decrease (be destroyed). The total

energy E of the universe cannot change.

Let the total energy of the system be E(sy) and that of the surroundings

be E(su). When they are added, their energies cannot both increase or both

decrease. In other words, they must add up to the total energy E(un) of

the universe which is constant. Hence we have

. E(sy) + E(su) = E(un) = constant (third form)

Let the value of the system's total energy be E(sy, 1) at time t(1) and

E(sy, 2) at time t(2). Let the value of the surrounding's total energy be

E(su, 1) at time t(1) and E(su, 2) at time t(2). Then at times t(1) and

t(2) for the universe we have

. E(sy, 1) + E(su, 1) = constant

. E(sy, 2) + E(su, 2) = constant

By subtracting the first equation from the second, we get

. E(sy, 2) - E(sy, 1) + E(su, 2) - E(su, 1) = 0

This difference may be concisely written as

. /_\E(sy) + /_\E(su) = 0 (fourth form)

where, for example,

. /_\E(sy) = E(sy, 2) - E(sy, 1)

Please take care that you do not read in this fourth equation something

such as

. /_\E(sy) = 0 AND /_\E(su) = 0

For all changes, only for the universe itself will

. /_\E(un) = 0

It will usually happen that the system's total energy /_\E(sy)

will increase or decrease rather than remain constant. Assume

that it increase (positive sign) by +5J. Then

. +5J + /_\E(su) = 0

so that /_\E(su) has to be -5J. In other words, an INcrease

(like +5J) in the system's total energy will be balanced by a

DEcrease of the same magnitude in the surrounding's total energy.

What the one system wins, the other system must lose. Both the

system SY and its surroundings SU cannot be winners.

What a strange world the physicists were living in! All the formulations

of all the laws which they have discovered were equations which made use

of the sign "=". Even their "descriptions" of work for each form of

energy made use of it. So much equality everywhere -- the physicist's

reality of equalities was the politician's dream. Yet for the system SY

and its surroundings SU and as a result of changes, only one can be the

winner in total energy E through this very equivalence relationship.

But the reality of the physicists soon became their nightmare. About a

dozen years after the discovery of LEC, Rudolf Clausius made a strange

discovery when following up the work of Sidi Carnot. He played with a

description having the pattern

. heat-flow / temperature

Compare it with the pattern

. force x distance

for work. It uses division "/" whereas work uses multiplication

"x", its complementary dual. Whereas the work changes the

energy E of a system so that /_\E may be measured and

calculated in terms of a "force x distance" description, he

assumed that the pattern "heat-flow / temperature" will allow

one to measure and calculate the change /_\S in a quantity

which he called entropy S. Thus this entropy S had to be the

complement (not equal) of energy E.

By simple though experiments (see Primer on Entropy)

< http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0265.html >

< http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0272.html >

< http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0273.html >

< http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0304.html >

< http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0334.html >

< http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0335.html >

he was able to conceptualise something which we may express

in the trend of the following. (We will use the sign "<>" to mean

"is not equal to", the sign ">" to mean "is greater than" and the

sign "<" to mean "is smaller than".)

The Law of Entropy Production (LEP):

. S(un) <> constant (first form)

. /_\S(un) > 0 (second form)

. S(sy) + S(su) <> constant (third form)

. /_\S(sy) + /_\S(su) > 0 (fourth form).

Compare its stunning complementarity (not equality!) with the

Law of Energy Conservation (LEC).

. E(un) = constant (first form)

. /_\E(un) = 0 (second form)

. E(sy) + E(su) = constant (third form)

. /_\E(sy) + /_\E(su) = 0 (fourth form)

The first form says that the entropy S of the universe UN is never

constant. The second form says that the entropy of the universe UN is

always increasing. The third form says that the sum of the entropies of

both the system SY and the surroundings SU are never constant. The fourth

form says that the sum of the changes of the entropies of the system SY

and the surroundings SU is always increasing.

Here physicists had their first ever law which did not make use of the

"equivalence relationship = of being", but rather the "order relationship

*> of becoming". It stunned them. Here is one of many reasons. (The unit of
*

entropy is "J/K" or "joule per kelvin".) Let the change in entropy

/_\S(sy) of the system be the increase +4J/K. Then we have

. +4J/K + /_\S(su) > 0

Should we have had the equality

. +4J/K + /_\S(su) = 0

then ONE and only ONE value is possible for /_\S(su), namely

the decrease -4J/K. But "should" is one thing and "must" is another

thing. Experiments tell us that we must have the ordering

. +4J/K + /_\S(su) > 0

so that uncountably MANY values are possible for /_\S(su). Here

are, for example, six possible cases:

. +4J/K + (-3J/K) > 0

. +4J/K + (-2J/K) > 0

. +4J/K + (-1J/K) > 0

. +4J/K + (-0J/K) > 0

. +4J/K + (+1J/K) > 0

. +4J/K + (+2J/K) > 0

Do observe that in the first four cases only the system SY is the

winner in entropy S, but in the last two cases also the surroundings

SU is a winner. Whereas the "=" affords us a "one-to-one-mapping",

the ">" affords us a "one-to-many-mapping".

All races seems to have one winner for each race. But there is one

exception -- the yearly great Comrades Marathon of South Africa. You will

not comprehend it unless you have seen a rich video on this race in which

more than 20 000 runners participate. Each runner who completes this

gruelling race against the self is a winner with time as the referee.

What? A new world in which equality for entropy S does not exist so that

sometimes both the system SY and the surrounding SU can be winners? Then

rather the old world of equality for all the other laws including energy

so that only one system, either SY or SU, but not both, can be the winner.

The Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM) of logic helped physicists so nicely

to discover all their famous physical laws. How can they scrap LEM for

such an infamous thing as LEP. No dice. This will make their world too

complicated.

So they invented a discipline which they called thermodynamics, but which

they rather should have called thermostatics. In this discipline they

forced all work and thus changes of energy to become "reversible". In that

case (putting a = on either side of <> and either side of >)

. S(un) =<>= constant (first form)

. /_\S(un) =>= 0 (second form)

. S(sy) + S(su) =<>= constant (third form)

. /_\S(sy) + /_\S(su) =>= 0 (fourth form)

where the hideous signs "=<>=" and "=>=" means "almost equal

with negligible discrepancy". In other words, for perfectly reversible

processes or changes they would have (removing the <> and the >

and one of the =)

. S(un) = constant (first form)

. /_\S(un) = 0 (second form)

. S(sy) + S(su) = constant (third form)

. /_\S(sy) + /_\S(su) = 0 (fourth form)

and thus would have regained their world of equalities in which

only one system can be the winner and LEM dictate the rest.

LEP has become like LEC.

Before this "reversibilisation" took place in the mind of the far majority

of physicists as well as engineers who followed their example, almost

every authentic thinker in physics had his own interpretation for entropy.

For example, Clausius interpreted it as "maximisation", Boltzmann as

"probability", Planck as "propensity" and Eddington as "time's arrow".

But eventually almost everybody began to bow before the interpretation

that entropy is a measure of "chaos". Yes, in the world of equalities in

which only one system can be the winner, truth is what you want it to be

and LEM dictates the rest, confusion (chaos ;-) must increase.

How can processes be made reversible as "classical thermodynamics"

(thermostatics) requires? Newton's Third Law of mechanics says that for

every action there is an equal, but opposite reaction. So, take the que

given more than three centuries ago and let the temperatures T(sy) of the

system SY and T(su) of the surroundings SU differ only by an infinitesimal

amount. Then, as heat Q flows from SY to SU, the change in entropy will be

. -Q/T(sy) + Q/T(su)

But since

. T(sy) =>= T(su)

which is intended to be in "perfect reversibility"

. T(sy) = T(su) = T (common temperature)

the expression

. -Q/T(sy) + Q/T(su)

becomes

. -Q/T + Q/T

which is equal to zero.

The only trouble is that for heat Q to flow "reversible" from SY to SU (or

vice versa) where the difference in temperature is almost zero, i.e. T(sy)

=>= T(su), it takes a very, very long time for all the heat Q to get

transferred! This is the reason why "classical thermodynamics" ought to

be called "thermostatics". This is also the reason why I prefer to speak

of LEC and LEP rather than the "first law of thermodynamics" and the

"second law of thermodynamics". The "second law of thermodynamics" is

merely a curiosity which had been phased out by way of forcing all

changes/processes to become "reversible". The remainder was then enshrined

by chaos.

Look at the temperature T of thermal energy in the "description" of

entropy. It is an intensive quantity (see Primer on Entropy what

"intensive" means). But is the temperature T of thermal energy the only

intensive quantity which a system may have? Applying LEM, yes, but

suspending LEM, no. The intensive quantity for pneumatic energy is the

pressure P, for electrical energy it is the electrical potential V, for

elastical energy it is the elastic tension T, etc. So what happens when we

apply the formula

. "reversible action = reaction"

to the flow of any other form of energy between the system SY

and surroundings SU?

Consider the flow of pneumatic energy which is called pneumatic (or PxV)

work. Here P is the symbol for pressure and V the symbol for volume. Now

consider the "becoming pattern" (see the series on the topic "To become or

not to become")

. [P(sy) - P(su)] x /_\V

where /_\V is the volume flowing from pressure P(sy) in the system

to pressure P(su) in the surroundings, or vice versa. Applying the

"reversible action = reaction" formula here means

. P(sy) = P(su)

so that

. [P(sy) - P(su)] x /_\V = 0.

Thus we can say with a nice equality that the pneumatic work

P(sy) x /_\V which enters the system SY is the pneumatic work

P(su) x /_\V which leaves the surroundings SU. But when we drop

the "reversible action = reaction" formula so that

. P(sy) <> P(su)

the expression

. [P(sy) - P(su)] x /_\V

is not zero anymore. What does it represent?

In the "idyllic reversible" world in which equality occurs everywhere,

one system wins and LEM reigns, this expression does not make

sense. The only expression which do make infinitesimal small

sense in this "idyllic reversible" world is

. -Q/T(sy) + Q/T(su)

or also written as

. [1/T(su) - 1/T(sy)] x Q

which tell us that entropy is increasing. To go beyond this infinitesimal

small sense we will have to know what entropy is. This soon becomes a

nightmare because the interpretation of entropy as "chaos" which has won

in this "idyllic reversible" world. With "chaos" as the interpretation,

the positive increase of the expression

. [1/T(su) - 1/T(sy)] x Q

tells us that one day the universe will end in a white hot hell like in

the beginning with the Big Bang. In other words, all evolution is a mere

illusion, even God Creator is an illusion.

In the "real irreversible" world the expression

. [P(sy) - P(su)] x /_\V

is yet another way of producing entropy! The actual entropy which it

will produce is equal to

. [P(sy)/T(sy) - P(su)/T(su)] x /_\V

It is difficult to stick to the "chaos" interpretation of the "idyllic

world" in this expression of the "real irreversible" world. When we add

all similar expressions for each form of energy together, we will get the

whole of "entropy production". To interpret this "whole of becoming

patterns" with "chaos" as candidate is perhaps the worst bet we could have

made upon a possible winner! In this "real reversible" world there are

more than one winners so that even betting becomes a farce!

The best interpretation which I can give for the whole of adding together

all "becoming patterns" of the form

. difference x flow

like

. (1/T(sy) - 1/T(su)) x Q

. [P(sy)/T(sy) - P(su)/T(su)] x /_\V

is the following:

. "patterns in form", or for short, "organisation".

Prigogine gives the impression (but do not actually make such a claim)

that entropy is a measure of "chaos and order". It is easy to show

(See Primer on Entropy) that entropy also measures order. But who

knows of any "organisation" without "chaos and order"? So let us go

one step further and combine "chaos and order" into "organisation".

Consequently we assume that entropy is indeed a measure of

"organisation".

The findings in the "idyllic reversible world" were not all in vain.

Perhaps the most important insight form this world is that when entropy is

transferred reversibly, what the system SY wins (respectively loses) in

entropy, the surroundings SU loses (resp wins) in entropy. Furthermore,

this transfer of entropy S is not independent of the transfer of total

energy E, but rather tightly associated with it. Consider any process

(reversible or irreversible) for which the transfer in total energy is,

for example:

. /_\E(sy) + /_\E(su) = 0

. (-5J) + (+5J) = 0

. 0J = 0

The system SY loses (- sign) and the surroundings SU wins (+ sign)

5J of energy. Should this process be reversible, the transfer in

entropy would be something such as: (Please note that reversible

imply the = rather than the >)

. /_\S(sy) + /_\S(su) = 0

. (-4J/K) + (+4J/K) = 0

. 0J/K = 0

Here the system SY loses and the surroundings SU wins 4J/K of

entropy. It follows the same pattern as energy, only with different

units and magnitudes.

However, should the process be irreversible, yet beginning and

ending at the same states as the reversible process, the outcomes

for entropy would be something like the following: (Please note that

irreversible imply the > rather than the =)

. /_\S(sy) + /_\S(su) > 0

. (-4J/K + 1J/K) + (+4J/K +2J/K) > 0

. (-3J/K) + (+6J/K) > 0

. +3J/K > 0

Here again the -4J/K to +4J/K is the transfer in entropy as in the

reversible case. But now the +1J/K is the extra entropy produced

in the system SY and the +2J/K is the extra entropy produced in

the surroundings SU. The total change of entropy in the system SY,

namely -3J/K, is such that it hides its two components

-4J/K(reversible) and +1J/K(irreversible). The same goes for the

surroundings SU. This means that there is no such a thing as

transparency all the way! Consequently, when we compare the final

outcomes of LEC and LEP for the irreversible case, namely

. /_\E(sy) + /_\E(su) = 0

. (-5J) + (+5J) = 0

and

. /_\S(sy) + /_\S(su) > 0

. (-3J/K) + (+6J/K) > 0

we are lured into making the fatal conclusion that LEC and LEP

act independently from each other since (-5J) + (+5J) = 0 appears

to be symmetrical while there is no symmetry in (-3J/K) + (+6J/K) > 0.

I say "fatal conclusion" because often people in the "real irreversible"

world will tend to take energy in account, but only seldom will they think

of entropy too. These people do not know that LEC and LEP are

complementary duals which should never be severed. Yes, it is extremely

difficult to picture complementary duals in numerical examples such as

. (-5J) + (+5J) = 0,

and

. (-3J/K) + (+6J/K) > 0

But it is even easier to make the following graver mistake.

[Here Part I ends. This break is due to technology and not because the

coin has been turned back. The movie is still running!]

Take care!

At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za>

Snailmail: A M de Lange

Gold Fields Computer Centre

Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria

Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa

--"AM de Lange" <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>

**Next message:**AM de Lange: "Work and Free Energy -- The Dance of LEP on LEC LO25370 -Part II"**Previous message:**Don Dwiggins: "A Story about Paper LO25368"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Mail actions:**[ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

* "Learning-org"
and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are
trademarks of Richard Karash.
*