0 saved
9.5K views
When applied broadly, an understanding of Entropy and The Second Law of Thermodynamics helps explain the passa ...
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Callipho ad virtutem nihil adiunxit nisi voluptatem, Diodorus vacuitatem doloris. Quis non odit sordidos, vanos, leves, futtiles? Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Et ille ridens: Video, inquit, quid agas; Nihil acciderat ei, quod nollet, nisi quod anulum, quo delectabatur, in mari abiecerat. Illud quaero, quid ei, qui in voluptate summum bonum ponat, consentaneum sit dicere. An est aliquid per se ipsum flagitiosum, etiamsi nulla comitetur infamia? Qui non moveatur et offensione turpitudinis et comprobatione honestatis? At ille non pertimuit saneque fidenter: Istis quidem ipsis verbis, inquit;
Sed fac ista esse non inportuna; Sed in rebus apertissimis nimium longi sumus. Si alia sentit, inquam, alia loquitur, numquam intellegam quid sentiat; Cur igitur, inquam, res tam dissimiles eodem nomine appellas? Sed ille, ut dixi, vitiose. Qui si omnes veri erunt, ut Epicuri ratio docet, tum denique poterit aliquid cognosci et percipi. Ergo illi intellegunt quid Epicurus dicat, ego non intellego? Nemo igitur esse beatus potest. Vulgo enim dicitur: Iucundi acti labores, nec male Euripidesconcludam, si potero, Latine; Invidiosum nomen est, infame, suspectum.
Ut in geometria, prima si dederis, danda sunt omnia. Minime vero, inquit ille, consentit. At enim hic etiam dolore. Quicquid porro animo cernimus, id omne oritur a sensibus; Tertium autem omnibus aut maximis rebus iis, quae secundum naturam sint, fruentem vivere. Sed ad bona praeterita redeamus. Hoc est non dividere, sed frangere. Te enim iudicem aequum puto, modo quae dicat ille bene noris.
- View everything as organised energy, that is decaying and dispersing.
Viewing ...
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aliter enim explicari, quod quaeritur, non potest. Quamquam tu hanc copiosiorem etiam soles dicere. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Duarum enim vitarum nobis erunt instituta capienda. Atque haec coniunctio confusioque virtutum tamen a philosophis ratione quadam distinguitur. Ita prorsus, inquam; Et non ex maxima parte de tota iudicabis?
Quod non faceret, si in voluptate summum bonum poneret. Quae iam oratio non a philosopho aliquo, sed a censore opprimenda est. Immo vero, inquit, ad beatissime vivendum parum est, ad beate vero satis. Indicant pueri, in quibus ut in speculis natura cernitur. Itaque ad tempus ad Pisonem omnes. Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; Longum est enim ad omnia respondere, quae a te dicta sunt.
De malis autem et bonis ab iis animalibus, quae nondum depravata sint, ait optime iudicari. Quae si potest singula consolando levare, universa quo modo sustinebit? Equidem, sed audistine modo de Carneade? Quod vestri quidem vel optime disputant, nihil opus esse eum, qui philosophus futurus sit, scire litteras. Quodcumque in mentem incideret, et quodcumque tamquam occurreret. Cum ageremus, inquit, vitae beatum et eundem supremum diem, scribebamus haec. Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit? Quid vero? Qui autem de summo bono dissentit de tota philosophiae ratione dissentit.
From a scientific point of view, there are some supposed challenges to The Second Law from quantum physics — but to be honest, we still don’t understand those challenges and the associated ongoing debate, which you can explore more in this 2017 Scientific American article.
In truth, we find a more interesting exploration of limitations via how you might use these models as a guide in your broader work and life. From that perspective, you might consider how the application of this model assumes that things decay, rather than change. That is, when applied to businesses, products, or relationships, rather than assuming decay, it might be more useful to assume change — that those elements will continue to evolve and shift which might or might not result in greater disorder. Though the pull towards disorder is still a compelling explanation for countless situations.
The steam engine.
It’s no coincidence that The Laws of Thermodynamics arose during the Industrial Revolution and the birth of the steam engine. The steam engine, at a basic level, has three components — a hot energy source (steam); a device that converts that heat energy into movement (pistons); and a vent that extracts energy that hasn’t been used as heat (a cold sink).
The need for the cold sink demonstrated that when heat was converted to movement, some of the heat was transferred into the system’s surroundings. This was an indicator that for energy to move from a high-temperature body to a low body one that work, or additional energy, was required.
The ice swan.
Imagine an ice sculpture of a swan sitting in an ocean. The sculpture might have incredible detail and artistry, meanwhile, the water around it has undefinable depths. Which do you think has more Entropy?
If you answered with the ocean, you’d be right. The ice sculpture is an ordered and defined object in comparison to the dispersed, random, and dare we say ‘disordered’ state of the water molecules in the ocean. The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that, without intervention, there is a greater probability that water molecules will organise themselves in the form of an ocean than that of an ice sculpted swan as a result.
Your bedroom.
A common analogy to explain Entropy is that of your messy bedroom. There are more ways your bedroom can be messy, than ways it could be clean and ordered. In that sense, your messy bedroom has high Entropy, and the Second Law would imply that it will tend towards that state if left unchecked.
,
As described in the In Practice section, the field of Thermodynamics was born from the Industrial Revolution and the invention of the steam engine. As with all such ideas, there were many contributors to the field, but French physicist Sadi Carnot was certainly seen as one of the leading thinkers in the space. His discussion of ‘thermodynamic efficiency’ was far ahead of its time.
Rudolf Clausius, working independently in the early 1850s, posited similar ideas after examining how heat from a heated body would flow to one of a lower temperature. He laid the groundwork for the Second Law by explaining: “heat does not pass from a body at low temperature to one at high temperature without an accompanying change elsewhere.”
The origins of these models are generally attributed to Clausius, though it could be rightly argued that Carnot had just as much, if not more, right to claim the mantle.
My Notes
Oops, That’s Members’ Only!
Fortunately, it only costs US$5/month to Join ModelThinkers and access everything so that you can rapidly discover, learn, and apply the world’s most powerful ideas.
ModelThinkers membership at a glance:
“Yeah, we hate pop ups too. But we wanted to let you know that, with ModelThinkers, we’re making it easier for you to adapt, innovate and create value. We hope you’ll join us and the growing community of ModelThinkers today.”
You Might Also Like:
- Actionable summaries of the world's most powerful ideas.
Subscribe now and download this practical guide to transform your thinking, plus recieve one short, powerful and actionable idea in your inbox each month.