/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4783191]

Hey /sci/, sorry for the slow poke, but I only just found out about this article.
Article:
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i9/e097403
Synopsis:
http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.097403

In essence, they are pumping 30 picowatts of energy into an led, which then produces 69 picowatts of light, the difference coming from ambient heat.

Is this violating the second law?

Also, I would really like a good look at this paper, so if anyone has access could they upload it somewhere? My should, but the system is being buggy, as per usual, and not letting me sign in.

[Anonymous No.4783199]

Oh boy

It's this thread again

Another faggot 12 year old engineer who's never taken solid state physics

[Anonymous No.4783196]

Is this what you look like OP?

Is your mouth always this full of engineer dick?

[Anonymous No.4783201]

>remedial solid state physics
>hard science
>implying 2012

[Anonymous No.4783200]

>>4783162
lurk moar
before you reveal your idiocy

[Anonymous No.4783202]

>I would really like a good look at this paper

>The extra energy comes from lattice vibrations

sounds like you need to take a look at the fucking paper

[sage No.4783207]

OP is a massive trolling faggot who actually thinks phonons imply violation of energy conservation

\thread

[Anonymous No.4783210]

>>4783207
>implying I said violation of first law
>implying I didn't say violation of second law

[Anonymous No.4783223]

Science fags are mad.

[Anonymous No.4783227]

>>4783202
I've read the preprint and I'm not reading the published paper fucking again. Despite the fact that it's riddled with grammatical errors and engineering-tier rigor, the results were never reproduced, and the claims are outrageous. Nowhere does it state the experimental setup, and nowhere does it imply that 69 picowatts produced work, or that it was scalable. The difference in energy comes from the vibrations of the LED lattice which slightly shifts energy levels in electrons by a capacitance-like effect if the lattice is sufficiently small. THIS DOES NOT IMPLY ZERO-POINT ENERGY, AND IT DOES NOT VIOLATE ENTROPY BECAUSE THE EFFECT IS NOT ISOTHERMAL, THE TEMPERATURE ALWAYS VARIES (because of the lattice vibrations, DURRR).

\thread

[Anonymous No.4783242]

>>4783210
>doesn't know what <span class="math">\delta Q = T \mathrm{d} S[/spoiler] means
You must be some sort of faggot biologist, engineer, or both

[Anonymous No.4783247]

>>4783210
Violation of the second law implies violation of the first law, you cannot do work on something without work, HURRR

[Anonymous No.4783249]

>>4783247
Can I have dumbshit images 1,2 and any more you have?

[Anonymous No.4783252]

>>4783210
>move a piece of material obeying the THE LAWS OF FUCKING PHYSICS as to distribute the currents so they generate more energy than the minimum
>not violating 1st law

[sage No.4783255]

>>4783210
Look at this guy, he thinks that entropy magically doesn't obey/is derived from Hamilton's principle and somehow MIRACULOUSLY IS SEPARATED FROM EVERYTHING ELSE IN PHYSICS

I BETTER ADD A TERM TO MY LAGRANGIAN JUST FOR ENTROPY GUIAZE

Horrible troll, not even mad, 0/10