Talk:Second Law of Thermodynamics
From SkepticWiki
I think we should try to downplay the "entropy == disorder" statement. I think it is misleading. I think more discussion of what entropy is in heat engines and less about what it is in kid's toy boxes would be a positive thing on the WWW. --Terry 15 August 2005 19:12 (GMT)
I disagree. Many of the people who will be reading this Wiki, especially those who are trying to deal with the "Evolution violates the 2nd Law" argument, are more interested with the entropy of toy boxes than the entropy of heat engines. If we're going to tell Creationists that entropy does not violate the 2nd law, we have to present them with a version of the 2nd law that is at least close to what their pastor preached at them last Sunday. -- Dr Kitten 15 August 2005 19:25 (GMT)
I see what you're talking about, but I kind-of disagree with your disagreement. I think we should explain what the second law *is*, not accept their strawman. Having said that, I guess it's up to me to come up with some compelling content, that being the Wiki way. --Terry 15 August 2005 19:42 (GMT)
- I agree and disagree with both. I think it is possible to come up with a way of rewriting this that 1) retains familarity for neophytes, 2) preserves the disabusing aspect, and 3) does not provide cognitive dissonance for people who know something about physics, as I believe the "efficiency of 1" does. I will try to come up with such a way and edit it soon.epepke 28 September 2005 23:50 (GMT)
I changed the third paragraph, because "state variable" has a very specific meaning, and heat doesn't meet it. I changed it to Temperature, which does, and left the rest alone. I don't think that's a very precise statement, but I couldn't think of anything better off hand. Too long since I did thermo... --Terry 17 August 2005 03:13 (GMT)
I expanded and made some changes. I kind of ran out of steam, which is highly appropriate, at the end. Might do with some wordsmithing. epepke 30 September 2005 01:03 (GMT)
I am worried that quotation at the end may violate fair use copyright issues. ideas? -Ducky
Well, that's got the science covered. Anyone who wants to really understand what the second law is can --- or rather, when the maths package is fixed, they can.
I suggest that the creationism part should all be merged into the one article under the "Creationist Arguments" subsection, with this page giving a link. Any objections?
--- Dr A.
