Maxwell's Demon

[Anonymous No.14747214]

>the second law of thermodynamics states that the net entropy of a closed system never decreases
>But in statistical mechanics things become more complicated.
>The second law of thermodynamics, as it arises in statistical mechanics, merely states that it is overwhelmingly likely that net entropy will increase, but it is not an absolute law.

So, statistically speaking, there is a non-zero chance that, spontaneously, one side of a box will heat up and the other side will cool down? Kind of like how you can walk through walls with quantum tunneling.

[Anonymous No.14747430]

Well done OP, but unfortunately, incorrect.

[Anonymous No.14747455]

>>14747430
brainlet

[Anonymous No.14747603]

>>14747455
>missed MaxPayne 2 reference

[Anonymous No.14747659]

>>14747214
You're describing the fluctuation theorem. And yes, the gist is that there is a non-zero probability that a system will spontaneously transition to a lower energy state. However it is generally transient and highly localized, and the probability decays exponentially with the change in entropy.

[Anonymous No.14747663]

>>14747214
you have to take in equation the energy spent in creation of Maxwell's daemon, and the fact that the daemon could degenerate after some time.
Thus 2nd law would still hold and overall entropy of system would be increased despite the fact that all hot and cold molecules would be perfectly sorted.

[Anonymous No.14747695]

>>14747214
how do you go from the concept of splitting a box into high energy and low energy via a literal barrier, to the idea spontaneous disequilibrium of an open space?

[Anonymous No.14749121]

You can have negative entropy production in small fluctuating systems, the second law only tells you that one average you cannot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluctuation_theorem#Second_law_inequality

[Anonymous No.14749128]

>>14747603
>makes Max Payne 2 reference
>post Max Payne 1 pic

[Anonymous No.14751047]

>>14747214
Random draw from an evolving probability distribution each DELTA t frame rate. Throw all possible future outcomes in a hat and draw one out. The probability will be exceedingly high that your described situation will not happen, but still non-zero. It makes sense in a probabilistic simulatory virtual reality situation where the physical world id not one of self existant fundamental observer independent 'matter'. It only does not make sense if you believe in deterministic event causality coming from within spacetime with regard to the physical world. Makes perfect sense in a computed physical world scenario.

[Anonymous No.14751065]

>>14747214
Yes, non-zero. But, how likely, and for how long?
Also, universe doesn't have magical walls like the box in that thought experiment.