Re: maximum entropy and the seeking of lowest PE

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>]

> I'm not quite sure how to respond, because I either agree or disagree.
> Depending on what is meant by Mechanical Energy.  If by "mechanical energy"
> one means the sum total of all the kinetic and potential energies of all
> particles in the mechanical system in question; then I disagree, as I would
> maintain that this is a conserved quantity.
>
> On the other hand (auf die andere Seite), if by "mechanical energy" you mean
> only that part of the energy described above that David referred to as
> "macroscopic degrees of freedom" then I think I agree and at 8:00am in the
> morning on the great plains think that it is a more or less equivalent
> statement for the 2nd law.  My personal taste is too find this to be a
> rather restrictive statement applicable only to mechanical systems and only
> if you divvy up the total energy in the specified fashion.    E.g. does the
> statement help with understanding why excited atoms tend to decay to their
> ground state emitting a photon.  I guess I'm stating a preference for
> statements of the 2nd law that refer to entropy, as being the basic or
> fundamental principal.  Other specialized statements coming from the
> entropic version.

The second interpretation catches my meaning. The second law of
thermodynamics is also quite restricted in its realm of
applicability. What many people fail to include when discussing
thermodynamics is the paramount importance of time scale. The
second law, unconstrained by time, implies that the final state of
the universe is the minimum set of black holes which will conserve
its dynamical integrals!

Physics is not a collection of Truths. It is a collection of Models
which represent, more or less accurately, mathematical constructs
isomorphic with natural phenomena.

Leigh