Second Law of Thermodynamics - Sixty Symbols 

I saw what you did there!

It just keeps going faster and faster. You know, I just realized that probably explains why the Simpsons are able to afford multiple mortgages on such a large, 4 bedroom house with 3 living areas (rec room, living room and the mysterious rumpus room), 2 cars and who knows how many whacky adventures, despite only Homer working in the house and according to the bear tax episode, he only makes 3 figures on his paychecks. Lisa must have solved the energy crisis.

“Lisaaaaaa!!”

but.. but.. my perpetual motion machine!?

... one day we 'll make a fortune.. you just wait and see! ;-)

you can already make a fortune selling perpetual motion to the gullible.

Or EM drives... just sayin'. ;-)

One of them was Trump for sure

Perpetual motion enthusiasts? Who isn't? Personally I'm a big fan of invisibility hats and seven league boots, and the fact that I know they don't exist or ever could, does not cool my enthusiasm! I dislike this video for quite different reasons: It's much too superficial!

4?

If u count the "0th" law, there r 4 alltogether.

Yeah, the proof of the equivalence of Kelvin's and Clausius's versions of the Second Law is so clear, much better than you usually find in the textbooks.

Saeed Baig 4 law? can u tell what law sepertatly describe with few words?

Really? I actually think that the way the 2nd law explained in this video is kinda confusing. Basically it's saying in a closed system, "work in > work out"...

The Guy That makes you mad I learned this as, "you have to play the game (first law), you can't win (second law), you can tie at absolute zero (third law), but you can't reach absolute zero." Not sure what the last bit was from, there is always some quantum tunneling which involves some motion and thus some heat or something Physical chemistry is where you learn to like synthesis because math gives you a headache.

Joshua Hillerup hard as nails

That's the icon for the Hello Internet podcast

The Guy That makes you mad yup :)

I liked the stirling engine

5:53

Ocean Bagel Bravo

bravo

Only applies if you're not an engineer

Phil P Yes, it seems obvious that Prof. M. misspoke at this point. The video should be fixed to avoid confusing people.

Mark Holm Too late now. Conspiratards will just twist whatever is done to prove their point! (which is conveniently located at the top of their head btw) People born in Ignoramustan learn from childhood that even slips of the tongue can be convoluted into virtually any moronic claim.

Charlie Franz Well, Ron Burgundy could probably think of something to say about that.

That statement is still true for the 'cold things hotter part'.

Actually, there are no mistakes in the first statement at all, physically talking, of course.

No time machines, at least not to the past

No one can put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

There's no reason to assume transitivity. Indeed, plenty of things in the real world aren't transitive.

Okay, now I'm interested. Could you give me an example to show what type of things aren't transitive please? I love learning new things. :3

for science it has to be stated even though it's obvious

Well abstractly the notion of friendship is non-transitive. That is to say, if Alice is friends with Bob and Bob is friends with Charlie, there's no reason to assume Alice is friends with Charlie. More concretely we could think of chemical reactions, say. If chemical A reacts with chemical B and chemical B reacts with chemical C, there's no reason to assume that chemical A will react with chemical C.

oooooh this kind of thing. Yes, that makes sense. Thank you! :)

Equations? What Equations?

you seriously didn't watch the video... 5:57 in plain sight W=q2-q1

Yeahhhh baby yeaaaaah! Oh behave!!

I assure you, it will always be easier to tidy up the kitchen than bring it to such low temperatures. Also, as you may already know, leaving the fridge door open will heat up the kitchen, not cool it. So your fridge will not be cleaning your kitchen any time soon. :-)

foxpup Of course I meant to say, would bringing the temperature of my kitchen to within a pubic hair (blond one - correct technical term) of 0K slow entropy enough to effect the washing up?

I'd say "washing up" along with "order" is a subjective concept anyway. The observer determines what it means for the kitchen to be "washed up". Since you would be the observer here, its your call. :-) The kitchen will take whatever form it has and the observer will create its own assessment of the kitchen's state based on personal objectives and bias. :-)

foxpup Aaargh! I'm all 'washed up' and on an express entropy elevator to disorder.

foxpup PS There is nothing subjective about that pile of washing up. Another science question; why do cornflakes require a high speed angle grinder to remove them from the bowl after 12 hours curing time?

schitlipz either you're an idiot or you're joking.

Nope. I actually argued that and got a piece of skin for it. :D It's just perspective. Similar to electronics when you switch from conventional current to electron current. What matters is potential.

Mathematically, it is equivalent, but physically it is very defined which one actually happens. We are quite certain that it is in fact the electrons that flow (even thought the positive flow is the one that became popular in engineering) and we are fairly certain that it is the heat energy that flows. But as long as you only want to calculate stuff within that model, you are allowed to switch from heat flow to cold flow any time you like, even though it does not have any practical use.

Our perception of which of two opposites is the "real deal" matters. Like in the case of matter-energy itself - is it as important as the "empty space" around it? No. It's about how nature behaves with respect to itself. Having the notion that one thing is _the thing_ and the other not is biased and confines thought. The practicality of it may seem trivial, but I believe it is not.

Well, sure. You *are* just doing a coordinate transformation after all...

IF the 2nd law of thermodynamics holds true in reality. There are a few quantum models that blur the lines a bit I believe. I am an amateur and could easily misinterpreted the paper.

In a closed system yes. There's a slight get around which is that the demon would have to be powered by something in the same way you can get around this by plugging a fridge into the mains. If you have an externally powered demon then it can work because the decrease in entropy of whatever the demon's messing around with will be more than offset by whatever's powering the demon.

So what your saying is that in order for this to work you would have to power the demon with something out of this life?

No, the entropy of the system decreases, but the entropy of the system+demon+demon's environment increases, thereby saving the 2nd law of thermodynamics from being violated.

lol this is great.

There's never enough entropy videos 😂

+Lukkas theKing In contrast to the first law (which was initially also a purly empirical, but later got its theoretical foundation from Emmy Noether, who correlated all conservations laws in nature to symmetries in nature) is the second law only an empirical law. In contrast to common believe it is not even strictly valid, because entropy can anytime decrease, at least in theory. The likelihood of this happening is just so insanely small that the universe is by far much too young that something like this has ever happened until now and as a result we have never observed a spontaneous decrease of entropy in a closed system yet (and it's very likely that we never will). In the end entropy i just a result of having so many particles in macroscopic objects, that what we observe are just statistical effects (you may wanna google Boltzmann's statistical interpretation of entropy for a better understanding). The perceived flow of time into seemingly just one direction (although all elementary particle reactions are in principle reversible) is also just an effect with the same cause.

Frank Schneider Thanks for the explanation.

It gives it a theoretical foundation. As long as there is temporal symmetry in the Lagrangian, which turns out to be true for systems obeying the laws of thermodynamics, there is energy conservation. That's a purely theoretical statement, which doesn't require any empirical input.

transylvanian If you refer to conservation of temporal symmetry: we know, that CPT symmetry is always conserved (at least to our current knowledge). As we know that CP-symmetry is violated by the weak force in certain processes, e.g. in some kaon or meson decays, it's obvious that also T-symmetry in these processes must be violated so the CPT symmetry is conserved. Oops So what does this mean for the energy conservation of this process ?

He already has. There is a video about that. The short version is: It was sent to him and he likes the pictures in it.

n

Indeed, heaters are one of the very few things that are literally 100% efficient.

Well, as humans we have an optimal operational body temperature so, in practical terms this heat is not "waste". It is if you expected your heater to be a car though.

transylvanian There is no energy that is *not* used to heat space, so in that sense a heater converts 100% of its energy into heat, as it should. But you are right that from a thermodynamical point of view this heat is considered 100% waste.

you go first

The universe is expanding.

I think that's enough weed for the day, Gordon.

At least the 26 billion LY diameter sphere of it that we can see sure seems to be expanding. :-) I personally make no statements about what is going on further out. I'm not a big fan of extrapolation. We really don't know what is going beyond that but it seems that anyone living 13 billion LY away in one direction has no idea what someone living 13 billion LY away in the other direction is doing if such people existed. They are mutually beyond the threshold of observation. :-)

What collapses? The mind, the thoughts or the universe?

TheProCactus convection doesn't require gravity. It works due to motion of fluid, which can happen in absence of gravity. And it is sane as conduction only on a microscopic scale at the interface. On a macroscopic scale, heat if flowing due to fluid at high temperature moving.

Well, the density of a fluid changes depending on how much energy it has, and it is that difference in density that gravity is acting upon. The resulting movement tends towards a fluid of equal energy distribution, so it seems fair to say that it is a method of energy transfer. I suppose it's also fair to say that the higher energy part of the fluid is touching other fluid, so conduction is certainly a factor.

TheProCactus convection works with gravity in your house because Gravity is there, but without gravity surely convection will still work because a high pressure gas would move to a lower pressure.

ok, Think of this.. What if I only have 2 atoms. Where does convection fit then.

TheProCactus convection is a macroscopic phenomenon. We don't consider individual atoms when studying it. The fluid is considered as a whole. Fluid can flow due to external causes, like fans despite being in zero gravity. That is called forced convection. Free convection requires gravity because it works on buoyancy. Edit: Not so sure about this, but I believe that temperature itself is a macroscopic quantity, and doesn't apply at the atomic level

the important nuance is that the proof is birectional, i.e., violating Kelvin is violating Clausius AND violating Clausius is violating Kelvin. also, axioms cannot be true or false, they can be accepted or unaccepted. more to your point, if you can prove that a violation of theorem a directly violated theorem b AND a direct violation of theorem b violates theorem a for each and every violation of the respective theorems, you prove equivalency.

what you are talking about is perpetual motion machine.

-1000 degree (Celsius/Fahranhiet) doesn't exist.

It means waste heat is going back to input heat! Magic fridge is absorbing waste heat!

I suppose the fridge in this theory would represent a closed system.