PEN-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
[PEN-L:28233] Re: RE: 2nd Law gone?
RE: [PEN-L:28229] 2nd Law gone?
----- Original Message -----
From: Devine, James
To: 'pen-l '
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 6:01 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:28230] RE: 2nd Law gone?
interesting article, but I think that the idea that the 2nd law of thermodynamics
could be "gone" is misled. Rather, the research says that the 2nd law is limited,
like Newtonian physics, to certain -- highly relevant -- frames. We knew that physics
worked differently at the microcosmic level already (though of course we don't know
exactly how enough to satisfy the experts). The fact that the 2nd law kicks in again
if the time-frame is long enough (2 seconds, the article says) suggests that its
violation for shorter time periods is a lot like friction.
JD
===============
Jim, it's just a subject header..............
anti-nomologically :-)
Ian
- Thread context:
- [PEN-L:28244] Re: Conservatives against slavery?, (continued)
- [PEN-L:28232] Vietnam ousts top communist party cadres,
Ulhas Joglekar Sat 20 Jul 2002, 02:20 GMT
- [PEN-L:28231] HONDURAN COMPESINOS NEED YOUR SUPPORT,
Nancybrumback Sat 20 Jul 2002, 01:39 GMT
- [PEN-L:28230] RE: 2nd Law gone?,
Devine, James Sat 20 Jul 2002, 01:08 GMT
- [PEN-L:28229] 2nd Law gone?,
Ian Murray Sat 20 Jul 2002, 00:06 GMT
- [PEN-L:28223] RE: derivatives redux,
Devine, James Fri 19 Jul 2002, 21:30 GMT
- [PEN-L:28222] RE: query,
Devine, James Fri 19 Jul 2002, 21:28 GMT
- [PEN-L:28220] derivatives redux,
Ian Murray Fri 19 Jul 2002, 21:23 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]